add_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Creates' with no details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. While it is brief, it is not overly verbose, but could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It should mention that the page is added to a project, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites.

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 100%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states the action: create a new wiki page. The verb 'creates' and resource 'wiki page' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like addDocument or add_issue, but the resource type is distinct, so it's still clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus other add_* tools or alternatives. The description provides no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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