create_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention permission requirements, behavior if a page with the same title already exists, or whether the operation is reversible. Mutation is implied but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Each phrase adds useful scope: 'Create', 'wiki page', and 'GitLab project'. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema covers all parameter semantics and the tool is structurally simple, making the brief description minimally viable. However, there are no annotations or output schema, and the description leaves gaps around prerequisites, return value, and conflict behavior.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details, but the schema handles the semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific operation ('Create'), the resource ('new wiki page'), and the scope ('in a GitLab project'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling wiki tools like get_wiki_page, update_wiki_page, and delete_wiki_page.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling wiki tools, such as whether to use update_wiki_page for modifying an existing page. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and operation described.

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