write_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — that an existing page is silently overwritten — which is genuine data-loss context. However it omits edit-permission requirements, what happens to sub-pages or attachments, and any conflict/version behavior on a mutation tool.

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?

Very compact, with the upsert scope front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block kept short. The Args lines do restate the schema, but the added format/comment semantics justify their presence rather than pure duplication.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with zero annotations the description is only partly complete: it covers the overwrite semantics but leaves permissions, prerequisites, and side effects on non-text content unaddressed.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for two params — text follows the project's Textile/Markdown configuration, and comments is the revision message — but says nothing about project_id or title beyond their obvious names. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Wiki ページを作成または更新する') and resolves the create-vs-update ambiguity with '(存在しなければ作成、あれば上書き)', which is meaningful because the tool name alone can't tell an agent whether it upserts or fails on collision. It implicitly separates itself from the read/list/delete wiki siblings, but never names them explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as read_wiki_page (to inspect before overwriting) or delete_wiki_page. The upsert behavior is stated as a fact, not as guidance about when overwriting is appropriate versus when the agent should avoid a blind write.

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