mediawiki_apply_formatting

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

Annotations already give destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it previews by default and only applies when preview=false, includes revision ID, diff URL, and undo instructions. Misses mentioning the required 'rationale' parameter and 'nowiki' format option, which slightly reduces transparency.

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?

Well-structured with headings, front-loaded purpose. Some redundancy in parameter list that repeats schema info, but overall efficient for the amount of detail provided.

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?

Covers main workflow with preview vs apply, but misses the required 'rationale' parameter entirely and fails to mention 'nowiki' format. Given 7 parameters and a modification tool, these are notable gaps.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds MediaWiki syntax for each format type, which is valuable. However, description omits the required 'rationale' parameter and lists only 5 format options while schema includes 6 ('nowiki'). Inconsistency and omission reduce additional value.

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 'BEST for adding formatting markup to specific text' with examples (bold, italic, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling mediawiki_find_replace. The verb 'apply' and resource 'formatting' are specific.

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?

Includes explicit 'USE WHEN' with concrete user requests and 'NOT FOR' referencing the alternative tool by name. Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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