update_wiki_page

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never discloses that this is a destructive full-content overwrite, whether the page must exist, whether the update bumps revisions or requires a comment, or what permissions/scope (organization/project) are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. Its brevity is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it does not lose points for wordiness here.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: overwrite semantics, existence requirements, and permission/scope expectations are all missing. Only the schema's field descriptions provide context, and they say nothing about behavior.

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 one of the six parameters (wikiId, pagePath, content, comment, projectId, organizationId) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it — it does not even repeat that content must be markdown. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update content of a wiki page', so an agent knows this mutates an existing page's body. It is clear but does not differentiate from siblings such as create_wiki_page, get_wiki_page, or search_wiki, and never clarifies whether the new content replaces the whole page or is merged in.

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 guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over create_wiki_page for new pages, over get_wiki_page for reads, or what prerequisites (page must already exist, project/org scoping) apply. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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