Wiki

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

There is a direct contradiction with annotations. The description states "Delete wiki page permanently," which is destructive, but annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This inconsistency seriously impairs the agent's trust in the tool's safety profile.

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 extremely concise, using a single overview sentence followed by a compact table. Every row in the table earns its place, specifying required/optional arguments and notes without unnecessary filler.

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?

The description covers all six operations with argument requirements and additional notes, which is substantial for a multi-operation tool. However, it omits return value details for the operations, and since there is no output schema, this represents a minor gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'page is the slug' for create, 'project needed if page is slug' for several operations, OCC versioning for update, and watch defaulting to true. This enhances schema-only semantics.

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's purpose: "Create, inspect, update, delete, or watch wiki pages in a project." This uses specific verbs and a resource that naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools (projects, work, sprints, comments, attachments).

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 table provides operation-specific required and optional arguments, giving clear context on when each operation is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the resource focus on wiki pages is sufficiently clear.

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