Update Group Wiki Page

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not idempotent or destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious, such as required permissions, error conditions, or side effects.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-informative. It earns its place by stating the core action, but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 the presence of 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which fields can be updated, prerequisites, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 fails to explain any parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'slug'. The parameters title, format, content, and group_id are entirely undocumented, forcing reliance on the schema alone.

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 'Update group wiki page by slug' clearly states the action (update) and the specific resource (group wiki page) with the identifying method (by slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_update_wiki_page (for project wiki pages) or when to prefer other update mechanisms. The description lacks any context for decision-making.

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