mediawiki_convert_markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail the annotations don't: what each OPTION does to the output (add_css styling block, reverse_changelog ordering, prettify_checks emoji substitution) and how themes change rendered colors. It does not address the non-idempotent hint, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the one-line purpose and organized under labeled sections, and the input/output example earns its space. It is somewhat repetitive, restating the OPTIONS bullets that the schema already documents, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and readOnlyHint carries the safety profile. Purpose, triggers, option semantics, theme meanings, and a worked example together give an agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends it: themes are annotated with brand specifics ('Hero Blue #021e57 headings, yellow code highlights') and defaults are called out ('neutral ... default'), beyond the schema's terse enum-like wording. The EXAMPLE also clarifies the expected shape of the required markdown input and the produced markup.

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?

States a precise verb+resource pair ('Convert Markdown text to MediaWiki markup') and immediately scopes it against siblings by saying it runs 'before creating or editing wiki pages', separating it from mediawiki_edit_page and mediawiki_apply_formatting. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE block names four concrete trigger scenarios (Markdown content for the wiki, GitHub/GitLab docs, README files, release notes) and implies the alternative workflow (edit/create after conversion). Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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