redmine_wiki_put_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (PUT, create-or-update) and the comment parameter for history. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting the entire page content, whether partial updates are supported, or any authentication/authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then explains the PUT semantics. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient but not rich. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites like project existence. However, the schema covers all parameters, and the core behavior is clear. For a mutation tool, this is acceptable but leaves some operational details undocumented.

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% — every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema already explains title, text, comments, project_id, and parent_title. Following the baseline rule for >80% coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enrich the parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination ('Create a new wiki page or update an existing one in a Redmine project') and adds the HTTP method (PUT) with the idempotent semantics (creates if not exists, updates if exists). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_wiki_get_page (reads) and redmine_wiki_delete_page (deletes).

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 explicitly explains the use case (create or update) and the behavior depending on existence. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (like 'use redmine_wiki_get_page to read'), but the context of siblings and the explicit verb make the intended use clear. It could be more explicit about when to use this vs. get/delete, but the core usage is well-stated.

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