wiki_link

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

The description explains the action (add line at end) and duplicate handling (skip if exists). However, it does not disclose effects if source note does not exist, permissions needed, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is somewhat adequate for a simple append operation.

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 concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It has no unnecessary words, but the first sentence is in Korean which may reduce accessibility. The structure is functional but not overly polished.

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 that annotations are absent and the output schema exists but is not described, the description does not cover return values or error handling. It is sufficient for the core task but lacks completeness for a full tool understanding.

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 0%, so the description provides essential meaning: source and target are note slugs, note is an optional one-line description. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify that 'note' is appended next to the link.

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 adds a wikilink line to the end of a source note's body and skips duplicates. The verb 'add' and resource 'source note' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like wiki_write_note (which writes full note content) but does not explicitly contrast.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like wiki_list, wiki_read_note, or wiki_write_note. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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