Project wiki

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

Annotations exist but provide limited insight (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description only mentions 'edits', which could imply non-destructive updates, and notably fails to disclose that the tool supports 'delete' (a clearly destructive action). No information about permissions, side effects, or reversibility is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 immediately states the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the key verbs and resource, containing no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 7 parameters, an action enum with 5 values, and no output schema. The description is too terse to cover action-specific behaviors, return payloads, or the project_id fallback. It fails to convey the complexity of a multi-action wiki tool, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 57%, with descriptions for slug, content, project_id, and with_content. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, and does not explain the 'action' enum or relationships between parameters. Since coverage is moderate, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses clear verbs ('Lists, reads and edits') tied to a specific resource ('wiki pages of a project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that don't cover wiki operations. However, 'edits' is a bit vague as it doesn't explicitly mention create/delete actions, though the schema clarifies these.

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 the context 'of a project' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose specific actions. Since there are no sibling wiki tools, the need for exclusion is low, but action-specific guidance is absent.

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