wiki_write_concept

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. It does state 'Create or update' and mentions extra_json for frontmatter, but it does not explain what OKF means, whether updates overwrite existing content, whether files are created automatically, or any side effects or requirements beyond 'type' being required.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds relevant parameter context, though the unexplained 'OKF' abbreviation slightly weakens clarity. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted content.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required identifiers, body/tags/title/description semantics, the meaning of OKF, or how the output is structured. The output schema exists, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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 the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only for 'type' (required, OKF) and 'extra_json' (optional JSON object string), while leaving agent_id, concept_id, body, tags, title, and description semantically unexplained.

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 creates or updates a concept file in an agent's wiki, which is a specific verb with a clear resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like wiki_append_log or wiki_read, but the resource and action are unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wiki_append_log, wiki_search, or wiki_read. It mentions 'type' is required, but does not explain when a concept write is appropriate or how it differs from other wiki operations.

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