Rebuild the page tree

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

With only idempotentHint=false and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating repair operation and adds the important safeguard that a confirmation token is required. However, it does not explicitly state what is overwritten or warn about irreversibility, so it is strong but not fully transparent.

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 two efficient sentences. The primary action and trigger condition are front-loaded, and the confirmation-token requirement is stated as a short trailing clause. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with a two-stage confirmation flow, the description plus schema adequately explain when to use the tool, what the token is, and how to obtain it. The absence of an output schema leaves response shape undocumented, but that is not a blocking gap for an action-oriented repair 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the confirm_token parameter already explains that it comes from a previous unconfirmed call and can be omitted to receive one. The description only repeats the token requirement without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'recomputes the folder structure Wiki.js derives from page paths' and labels itself as the repair for a navigation tree that disagrees with actual pages. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_navigation_tree and from rebuild_search_index, since the focus is specifically on the page-path-derived folder structure.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use condition: use it when the navigation tree disagrees with the pages actually present, usually after a bulk import or database edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

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