convert_to_mediawiki

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable transformation context (specific syntax mappings) that annotations don't cover, but omits handling of edge cases like invalid Markdown or whether the conversion preserves YAML frontmatter. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose; the second provides concrete transformation examples that immediately clarify scope. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter input schema with complete descriptions and available annotations, the description adequately covers the conversion logic without needing to document return values (handled in output_path schema description). Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling for malformed input.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying which Markdown features are handled (tables, headers, bold, code), implicitly documenting the 'markdown' parameter's expected content type beyond the schema's technical description. It doesn't detail the output_path behavior, but the schema covers that comprehensively.

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 'Convert Markdown to MediaWiki markup' with specific verb and resource. The transformation examples (== syntax, triple quotes, <syntaxhighlight> tags, {| wikitable) specifically distinguish this from sibling conversion tools like convert_to_html or convert_to_latex by identifying the exact target format syntax.

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 implies usage through the MediaWiki-specific syntax examples, making it clear this produces MediaWiki markup versus other formats. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the 20+ sibling conversion tools (e.g., no 'use this for MediaWiki wikis, use convert_to_html for web pages' comparison).

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