add_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Creates', which implies mutation, but it doesn't mention permissions, side effects (e.g., mailNotify), return values, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a minimal disclosure for a create operation.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and achieves the core purpose without waste. It is concise, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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 too minimal for a tool with 4 params and many siblings. It doesn't explain when to use it, what happens on success, or any required permissions. The schema covers params, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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%, with all parameters (name, content, projectId, mailNotify) having descriptive text. The description adds no parameter information, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Creates a new wiki page' clearly states the verb (creates) and resource (wiki page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_wiki and get_wiki, but it is somewhat generic and doesn't specify the project context (projectId) or other constraints, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, project membership, or differentiate it from other add_* tools like add_issue or addDocument. There is no context for when a wiki page should be created.

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