taiga_create_wiki_page

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It only mentions slug formatting and omits permissions, duplicate-slug behavior, side effects, error cases, and what is returned after creation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a useful slug constraint. The second sentence is partly redundant with the schema, but the description remains efficient.

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 create mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the required project_id unexplained and provides no context about permissions, duplicate handling, or post-creation behavior.

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 coverage is 67%: slug and content are documented in the schema, while project_id has no description anywhere. The description repeats the schema's slug guidance and adds an example, but does not compensate for the unexplained required project_id parameter.

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 new wiki page.' It is clearly distinguishable from list/get/update/delete wiki siblings by the verb, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those alternatives.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus taiga_update_wiki_page or other creation tools, and no prerequisites such as required project permissions or existing project context.

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