Create a separate proposed replacement for a wiki target after reading its current content; the original stays untouched, and a base hash guards against stale edits.
Create a separate proposed replacement after reading the current target. Never overwrites it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| rationale | Yes | ||
| base_sha256 | Yes | ||
| replacement_body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two key traits: the target is not overwritten, and the current target should be read first. It still omits important behavior such as review-queue placement, permission requirements, stale-base handling, and response shape.
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 two short sentences with no filler, and the non-overwrite constraint is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a terse tool summary, though the missing detail must be scored under completeness rather than conciseness.
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 five required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides only the core non-destructive concept and is not complete enough to guide correct parameter usage or explain the surrounding review workflow.
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% across five required parameters. The description only vaguely maps 'target' and 'replacement' to the operation, leaving title, rationale, and especially base_sha256 unexplained despite their importance for correct invocation.
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 and resource: create a separate proposed replacement. The phrase 'Never overwrites it' clarifies that this is not a direct edit, but it does not name the wiki page explicitly or distinguish the tool from sibling workflows like wiki_read or wiki_review_queue.
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?
The phrase 'after reading the current target' implies a prerequisite workflow and safe-use context. However, it does not explicitly name wiki_read as the required prior step, nor does it state when to use this instead of other wiki tools or what happens after the proposal is created.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.