create_wiki

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action of creation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a creation tool, more transparency about required context (e.g., organization) would be beneficial.

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 that front-load the action and provide essential differentiation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is mostly complete for creation but lacks mention of what is returned (e.g., wiki ID or URL). No output schema exists, so this gap reduces completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two wiki types and hinting at parameter relevance for codewiki, but does not elaborate beyond schema for other parameters.

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 clearly states 'Create a new wiki' and distinguishes between two types ('projectwiki' for simple project wiki, 'codewiki' to publish from a repository folder), differentiating from sibling tools like create_wiki_page.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each type (projectwiki vs codewiki) and implies that codewiki requires additional parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context and provided detail are sufficient.

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