add-wiki

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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. The description states that the tool fails if a wiki with the same key is already registered, meaning repeated identical calls would not produce the same result (first succeeds, second fails). This is inconsistent with the idempotentHint=true annotation. The description otherwise adds the creation of a resource and failure conditions, but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes secondary information about URI availability and failure modes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers main functionality and failure cases but omits details about return values (no output schema). The contradiction with idempotentHint reduces completeness. For a simple registration tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema ('Any URL from the target wiki') is essentially identical to the tool description. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, achieving the baseline.

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 clearly states that the tool registers a new wiki as an MCP resource by fetching its sitename and API config from any URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove-wiki' and 'list-wikis' by its unique purpose.

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?

The description implicitly guides usage by explaining the resulting resource and failure conditions. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.

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