parse-wikitext

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds important details about HTML truncation at 50000 bytes and trailing marker, and the need for follow-up calls for full output. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then behavioral nuance. No wasted words. Every sentence carries meaning.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers return types (HTML, parse warnings, categories, etc.) and the truncation behavior. Could be more detailed about the structure of some outputs, but sufficient for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining default for title ('API') and clarifying that applyPreSaveTransform matches editor 'Show preview' behavior, supplementing the schema descriptions.

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 it renders wikitext and returns specific outputs (HTML, parse warnings, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like create-page and update-page by focusing on previewing/dry-running.

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?

Explicitly says it's suited for dry-running edits before create-page/update-page or previewing standalone wikitext. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the positive use cases are clear.

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