azure_create_wiki

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create action and adds no context about required fields, conditional behavior based on 'type', or side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the literal action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content, though this is not a conciseness issue but rather a completeness issue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has five parameters, including a conditional 'type' enum (projectWiki/codeWiki) and fields that are required only for codeWiki. The description provides no context about these variations, no output expectations, and no operational details. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete for the complexity of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description itself adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Cria uma nova wiki no projeto' clearly states the action (create) and resource (wiki) with a project scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'azure_create_wiki_page' by specifying 'wiki' rather than 'wiki page', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclude any use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.