Add a raw source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it usefully discloses that the source is read-only, gets written to raw/<title>.md, and that ingestion is triggered as a follow-on action — non-obvious side-effect information. It omits permissions, what ingestion produces, failure modes, and whether the source becomes immediately searchable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence (save then ingest), followed by a compact example. Nothing is redundant, though the example borders on padding given 100% schema coverage.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the ingestion side effect. It leaves gaps around what the agent should expect back and what state the source ends up in, which matters for chaining into wiki_read or wiki_search.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the 'do not summarize' constraint on content — baseline 3 applies. The example invocation adds concrete wiring of sandbox_id/title/content but no semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource — save pasted text as a new read-only raw source — and names the target path (raw/<title>.md), which distinguishes it from page-creating siblings like wiki_create_page. It doesn't explicitly say 'not for wiki pages', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Save text the user pasted' implies the trigger condition, and 'Then ingest it' hints at downstream effects. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer wiki_create_page or wiki_edit_page instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied sandbox_id from wiki_start.

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