create_wiki

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing. For a mutation tool it does not disclose whether it fails on a duplicate title, whether it overwrites, what permissions are required, or whether the slug is derived from the title. Only the bare 'create' semantic is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate tightness.

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?

Four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only place to explain creation semantics, and it explains none of them. An agent cannot tell from this text what happens on conflicting titles, what a successful response contains, or whether the page is immediately visible.

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%: title, format (with enum and default), content, and project_id (with accepted ID/path forms) are all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format hints, content-sizing limits, or title-uniqueness constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('new wiki page in a GitLab project'), so the agent immediately knows this is the creation counterpart to list_wikis/get_wiki/update_wiki. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those siblings, but the verb alone distinguishes it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_wiki (e.g. when a page already exists) or how it relates to create_or_update_file. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about the wiki namespace or project scoping is given.

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