wiki_create_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a page and returns an ID and path on success, which covers basic success behavior. However, it lacks critical information: whether this requires authentication, what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate paths), if there are rate limits, or any side effects. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the action and key parameters, the second specifies the return value. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a write operation with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and success return but misses parameter semantics, error handling, authentication needs, and behavioral nuances. For a tool that creates resources, this level of detail is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only mentions 'path' and 'content' (markdown), leaving 'title', 'description', and 'tags' completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, failing to explain parameter purposes, formats, or constraints, which is inadequate given the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new wiki page'), including the action ('with markdown content'). It distinguishes from siblings like wiki_get_page (read) and wiki_update_page (modify), but doesn't explicitly contrast with wiki_list_pages or wiki_search_pages. The description is specific enough to understand the core function.

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 implies usage context through 'Create a new wiki page' and mentions a return value, suggesting it's for initial page creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like wiki_update_page (for existing pages) or wiki_move_page (for relocation). There's no guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool selection beyond the implied creation context.

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