update-wiki-page

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful operational details beyond annotations, including the API requirement for subject, the 400 error behavior, the content-only workflow, and the referrers-clearing 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then organized into required/optional and workflow sections. It is mostly efficient, though the required/optional list partly repeats the schema and adds some 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 annotations, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description is substantially complete for calling the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is that it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling update-wiki-page-body tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially the non-obvious requirement that subject must be supplied even for content-only updates and that null referrers clears all referrers.

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 a specific verb and resource: updating a wiki page's title and/or content. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling update-wiki-page-body tool, so an agent may need to infer which update tool to use.

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?

It gives clear context for required and optional fields and provides a specific workflow for content-only updates. However, it does not name or compare against the closely related update-wiki-page-body sibling, leaving that alternative unaddressed.

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