redmine_update_wiki_page

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the write behavior and concurrency risk. Missing details on error handling (e.g., invalid version) and what the tool returns (success or updated page).

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 concise sentences plus an important note. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior and concurrency concern. However, it omits return value details, error scenarios, and format for project_id, which are important for a complete understanding.

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 0%, but the description only adds meaning for the 'version' parameter. It does not explain 'project_id', 'title', 'text', or 'comments' beyond their names, leaving agents to infer their purposes.

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 the tool creates or updates a Redmine wiki page, specifying both create and update behaviors. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_get_wiki_page (explicitly mentioned) and redmine_delete_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?

Provides explicit guidance to fetch the page first with redmine_get_wiki_page and pass the version to avoid overwrites. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for other wiki operations, but the caution is strong.

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