write_wiki_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the destructive action of overwriting an existing page, which is the most important behavioral characteristic. It does not mention other aspects like auth requirements, rate limits, or return values, but the schema already covers the token parameter and no output schema exists.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently conveys the key functional scope and behavior without redundancy.

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 rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior of creating or overwriting a wiki page. It could be more complete by explicitly directing users to append_to_wiki_page when they want to preserve existing content, but the overwrite language already implies this distinction.

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 100%, with all six parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond referencing 'provided content' for the content parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool writes or updates a GitHub wiki page, with explicit coverage of creating new pages or overwriting existing ones. It uses a specific verb+resource (write/update wiki page) and partially distinguishes from siblings by noting the overwrite behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like append_to_wiki_page.

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 through the overwrite behavior: the description says it 'overwrites an existing one,' suggesting it is not for appending. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as append_to_wiki_page, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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