Create Wiki comment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with open-world access. The description adds that a created comment with numeric id is returned, which is useful for chaining, but it does not add much beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a focused parent_id/threaded-reply note. Nothing is redundant or meandering.

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 a nested write body, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, threaded reply mechanics, and the return id. It omits inline-comment placement details, but those are fully described in the schema.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the parent_id reply behavior but adds no new syntax or format details for inline_text, thread_id, or body. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Add a comment (or a threaded reply) to a wiki page.' It distinguishes this from read/delete siblings and points to the relevant lookup tool for parent ids. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly scopes the tool to wiki pages and explains how to create a threaded reply, including where to find parent ids. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to tracker-comment siblings, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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