Wiki

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

The description exposes meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: delete is described as permanent, update is described as OCC versioned, watch defaults to true, and list/get inspect metadata and content. This goes well beyond the bare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations.

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 operation table is a compact and scannable way to present six different modes in one tool. It is mainly efficient, although the repeated 'project needed if page is slug' note could be consolidated; still, the structure gives high clarity without unnecessary prose.

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 is highly complete for selecting and invoking each operation because it maps required args, slugs, content format, watch default, and destructive flag. With no output schema, a little more detail about the actual returned data shape would round it out, but the agent can safely and correctly call the 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?

The table adds per-operation required/optional semantics beyond the raw schema, clarifies page as ID/slug, and explains when project is needed. It also documents content as Markdown and watch default behavior, so an agent can invoke each operation correctly without guessing parameter combinations.

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 begins with a clear action list—'Create, inspect, update, delete, or watch wiki pages'—and then concretely defines each operation against the wiki page resource. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and keeps the list/get/create/update/delete/watch overloaded operation distinct from sibling resource tools.

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 operation table gives explicit routing for each op and states which arguments are required versus optional, including the important condition that project is needed when page is a slug. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling tools, but the table provides sufficient when-to-use guidance for each operation.

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