updateWikiPage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by clarifying the full-replacement semantics rather than a partial edit. It adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the optimistic-locking/concurrency requirement, though it says nothing about permission needs or conflict-error behavior.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the operation semantics and then the preconditions/alternative. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 annotations cover the safety profile, leaving the description to handle replacement scope and concurrency — both addressed. It stops short of covering the undocumented comments parameter or failure behavior, which is the only remaining 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 description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two most consequential parameters: text is a complete replacement, and version is the current value from getWikiPage used for optimistic locking. It says nothing about comments, pageTitle, or projectId, so coverage is not complete.

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 precise verb and resource ('Replace the complete text of one existing Redmine wiki page') and immediately disambiguates the operation type ('not a patch or append'). It also names the sibling to use for the creation case, so an agent can distinguish it from createWikiPage without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('not a patch or append') and an explicit alternative with its triggering condition ('use createWikiPage if absent'). It also states the prerequisite for the version parameter, leaving little to inference.

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