create_work_package_wiki_link

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: a hard version prerequisite (17.7+) and the failure signal ([not_found] naming the required version). It does not restate the preview/confirm two-phase behavior, which is documented in the schema, so this sits just below the top.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the version caveat, then parameter notes in a tight per-parameter layout. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing warning about list_work_package_wiki_links is slightly tangential to the create call itself.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error behavior, and the two undocumented parameters. The one remaining gap is what a successful call (or the confirm=false preview) returns, which the description does not describe and no output schema supplies.

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 only 50% (provider and identifier are undocumented in the schema), and the description fills exactly that gap: identifier is the page identifier at its provider and must be the numeric wiki_page_id for the internal wiki; provider is the provider's universal identifier such as 'internal'. It even flags the non-obvious trap that a non-resolving link breaks list_work_package_wiki_links.

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?

Specific verb + resource in the first sentence: 'Create a link from a work package to a wiki page.' It also names the related siblings implicitly (get_wiki_page, list_work_package_wiki_links) and the counterpart delete tool is obvious from the name, so an agent can distinguish it from the read/delete variants without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete pre-call routing: get the identifier from get_wiki_page's wiki_page_id when using the internal wiki, and check the server version since older servers return [not_found]. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when…' exclusion, but the workflow context is clear enough to act on.

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