Write wiki page

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses several important behaviors: the path is deliberately not derived by the server, missing folders are auto-created, the YAML header is completed while existing fields are kept, and an existing file is replaced only with overwrite=true. This gives the agent a detailed and accurate behavioral model.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: effect, path semantics, prerequisite call, YAML behavior, and overwrite caveat with sibling alternative. There is no filler and the most important caveat is front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive, complex tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, how to choose the path, how to avoid clobbering existing files, what happens to YAML fields, and which sibling to use for partial edits. No critical call-blocking information is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining path semantics (user-chosen, not server-derived), automatic folder creation, and the overwrite guard. It does not need to restate parameter types since the schema already documents them.

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 opens with 'Create or fully overwrite a wiki page,' a specific verb and resource. It goes further by distinguishing itself from wiki_patch_page ('use wiki_patch_page for partial edits'), making the tool's scope unambiguous against its siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call wiki_list_folders first so the path matches existing structure, set overwrite=true only when replacing an existing file, and use wiki_patch_page instead for partial edits. This is actionable and routes the agent to the right alternative.

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