updateWikiPage

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create or update' adds no new behavioral insight. There is no mention of version handling, idempotency, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is insufficient disclosure beyond what structured annotations provide.

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 concise (single phrase), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action but lacks any useful detail. It is not verbose, but the brevity works against it because it omits critical information.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, required path and body parameters, an enum, and no output schema), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, the role of each parameter, or expected behavior. An agent cannot correctly construct a valid call without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the meaning of pathParams (format, projectId, wikiPageTitle) or bodyParams (wiki_page with text, version, comments). With zero compensation for the missing schema descriptions, the description adds no value on parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create or update wiki page'. It distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like getWikiPage and deleteWikiPage, but does not explicitly differentiate from other write operations. It is not a tautology, but it is minimal and lacks specificity about the unique behavior of this tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project), conditions for create vs update, or any exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to pick this over other wiki or project tools.

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