taiga_create_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, duplicate slug behavior, or response format. The phrase 'new' implies non-editing, but no meaningful behavioral traits are revealed.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create tool and front-loads the key action and resource.

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 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It lacks any note about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like project existence. Without an output schema or annotations, a bit more context would be helpful, but the core operation is clear.

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 100%, with all three parameters properly described (slug pattern/example, content Markdown support, project ID). The description adds no additional parameter context, but per the baseline, this is sufficient since the schema already documents everything.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('wiki page') and scope ('in a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_get_wiki_page and taiga_edit_wiki_page. The action is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 description implies use when creating a new wiki page, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as taiga_edit_wiki_page or taiga_create_userstory. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided beyond the basic resource type.

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