wiki_write_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'write or update' and mentions frontmatter. It does not state whether existing pages are overwritten or merged, whether parent directories are created, or what happens to existing frontmatter fields.

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 extremely concise, with a single opening sentence followed by a compact argument list. No unnecessary text is present, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple write tool the description is mostly adequate, and the output schema presumably covers return values. However, the relationship between summary/tags and the frontmatter is left implicit, and the tool's behavior relative to the wiki index and other siblings is not clarified.

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?

The Args section provides meaningful descriptions for all four parameters, including an example for path and clear statements for body, summary, and tags. Since the schema has no descriptions, this compensates well, though body constraints could be more detailed.

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 identifies the action (write or update), the resource (wiki page), and a key feature (frontmatter). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like wiki_update_index or wiki_ingest_raw, but the focus on page-level writing is evident.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives or what scenarios call for it. There is no mention of not using it for index updates, bulk ingestion, or other related operations.

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