create_or_update_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the underlying HTTP method, text formatting dependency on instance config, parent_page semantics (empty leaves current nesting on update, roots on new pages), and comment visibility in history. However, it does not mention permissions or error cases, which would add further transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief implementation note, and a well-organized Args list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it both concise and scannable.

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's complexity (5 params, write operation) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, all parameters, and key behaviors like formatting and nesting. It lacks a few edge-case details (e.g., overwrite behavior, permissions), but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by providing an Args list that explains every parameter (project_identifier, title, text, comment, parent_page), including nuances like parent_page behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new wiki page, or update an existing one,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_wiki_pages, get_wiki_page, and delete_wiki_page by indicating it handles both creation and update operations.

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 clarifies that the same PUT endpoint handles both create and update, implying it is the go-to tool for upserting wiki pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool. A minor deduction for lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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