Create or update a wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully corroborates the upsert/versioning behavior ('saves a new version'), implying history is preserved rather than overwritten, but adds nothing about authorization, rate limits, or what a successful call returns.

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 well-formed sentence with the conditional logic front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a mutating tool, leaving little room for the routing and constraint information an agent would benefit from.

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 four-parameter upsert with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters. However, it omits permission requirements, concurrency/version-conflict behavior, and the fact that a write is happening in a specific project context, which leaves real gaps for an agent acting without other context.

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% — title, text, comments, and project_id are all documented in the schema, including that text defaults to Textile and comments is a version comment. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource ('Creates the page... otherwise saves a new version'), making the upsert semantics explicit and distinguishing it from read-only siblings like wiki_get_page and wiki_list_pages. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of 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 guidance, no mention of alternatives (wiki_get_page, wiki_delete_page), and no prerequisites such as required project permissions or whether the project must already exist. The only usage signal is the implied create-vs-update behavior.

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