write_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool is destructive (overwrites) and requires markdown with a title. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or conflict behavior, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 clear and well-structured with an Args section. It is slightly verbose in the first sentence but each part is informative. No redundancy, and it efficiently communicates purpose and parameter expectations.

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?

The tool has an output schema present but not shown; however, the description does not mention return values or error handling. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but leaves gaps regarding success confirmation and potential errors.

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%, but the description compensates by fully explaining both parameters: slug as a stable identifier with examples, and content as full markdown starting with '# Title'. This adds concrete guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates or overwrites a persistent wiki page with markdown content. It specifies the use case for summarizing durable knowledge about topics, people, projects, or meetings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_wiki_page and list_wiki_pages.

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?

Description provides context on when to use (for long-term memory storage) and what content to include (key decisions, status, commitments). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for transient data.

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