Replace Wikihypelinks

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the return payload ('Returns {"cleaned_text": "..."}'), which is useful. However, it says nothing about handling of malformed/nested/escaped wikilinks, idempotency, or whether the operation is non-destructive, so transparency is only partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the transformation rule and trailing the return shape. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter string transform with an output schema present, the description covers the transformation and the return key, which is sufficient to invoke it. Minor gaps remain around input edge cases, but nothing blocks correct usage.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. The examples implicitly communicate the expected input domain (wikitext containing [[...]] links), but the sole 'text' parameter is never named or described, leaving the mapping inferred rather than stated.

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 specific verb+resource and pins it down with a literal before/after example ('Replace [[Target|Label]] with Label and [[Target]] with Target'), so the exact transformation is unambiguous. The 'replace' verb cleanly separates it from the 'extract_wikihypelinks' sibling, which shares the same resource but a different action.

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 explains what happens but never says when to reach for this tool versus extract_wikihypelinks or the other citation/regex extractors in the sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context of use are given.

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