createWikiPage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it writes as the API-key user (auth/identity) and fails on duplicate title (concrete failure mode). It does not cover comment handling on an initial create, a minor omission against an otherwise informative write path.

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 sentences, zero filler. The creation behavior comes first and the routing rule second, which is the right order for a front-loaded tool description.

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 no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers creation semantics, identity, duplicate-title failure, and the alternative tool. Only the undocumented comments parameter leaves a small gap.

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 only 40%, with projectId and parentTitle documented in-schema; text, pageTitle, and comments are not. The description compensates for text ('complete initial text') and parentTitle ('optional parent'), but says nothing about pageTitle or comments, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Redmine wiki page') and narrows scope with 'complete initial text and optional parent'. It names the sibling updateWikiPage as the contrasting tool, so an agent can tell creation from update without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-not and alternative: 'fails if the title already exists; use updateWikiPage for an existing page.' This directly tells the agent which tool to pick for a pre-existing page, leaving nothing to inference.

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