create_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious trait that an existing page at the path will be updated rather than erroring. It stops short of saying whether existing content is overwritten or merged, and says nothing about auth scope or reversibility.

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, zero filler, and the core action plus its upsert caveat are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

The key surprise (silent update of an existing page) is covered, which is the most important thing for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. Still missing is any statement of what is returned and whether the update overwrites content, leaving a meaningful gap for a destructive-capable write.

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 all six parameters (including wikiId, pagePath, content, projectId, organizationId, comment) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new page in a wiki') and adds the upsert qualifier, so the agent understands this is not purely additive. It does not differentiate from the sibling update_wiki_page, which overlaps when the page already exists.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'already exists' clause, which hints that this can serve as an upsert. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer update_wiki_page or how to check existence first.

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