create_wiki

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions, whether creation fails on duplicate names, or what happens with the codeWiki vs projectWiki variants. The schema hints that repositoryId is required for codeWiki and mappedPath only applies there, but the description does not surface these behavioral rules.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the action is stated first. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 six-parameter, three-required mutation tool with conditional variant logic (codeWiki needing repositoryId and mappedPath) and no annotations or output schema, this sentence provides essentially no guidance. An agent calling it correctly would be relying entirely on the schema, and would have no idea what the tool returns or how failures manifest.

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%, so every parameter including the enum for type and the codeWiki-only constraints is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new wiki") plus a scope ("in the project"), so an agent knows exactly what object is produced. It does not differentiate from near siblings such as create_wiki_page or get_wikis, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this creates a container wiki rather than a page, and nothing addresses prerequisites like project or repository context.

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