wikijs_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, and it only states a basic action. It does not disclose what happens if a page already exists at the given path (overwrite, error, skip), whether authentication or workspace context is required, or what the tool returns. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though 'with markdown content' is slightly redundant with the schema's own 'Page content in markdown format' parameter description.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 21 siblings including several overlapping creation flows, this one-liner is insufficient. The schema covers parameters, but the description omits sibling-selection context and behavioral expectations (e.g., path collision behavior), which are the very gaps an agent needs filled in this complex tool landscape.

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 every one of the 9 parameters (path, tags, title, editor, locale, content, isPrivate, description, isPublished) is already documented structurally. Baseline 3 applies; the description's 'with markdown content' adds only marginal reinforcement of the content/editor parameters and no new semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new page in Wiki.js') that clearly distinguishes it from read, update, and delete siblings like wikijs_get_page, wikijs_update_page, and wikijs_delete_page. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling wikijs_create_nested_page, which also creates pages; the agent cannot tell from the description alone which creation tool to pick.

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 gives zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the 21 siblings. No mention of when to prefer it over wikijs_create_nested_page (nested structure), wikijs_bulk_create_pages (multiple pages), or wikijs_sync_file_docs (file-based creation). Any usage inference must come from sibling names, not the description.

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