update_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the supplied content fully replaces existing content, what permissions are needed, or what happens on a bad slug. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key scoping word ('existing') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though very terse for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Given five parameters, a mutation semantic, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never states that content likely overwrites the page, how renaming via title interacts with slug, or any failure/authorization behavior. An agent has enough to guess an invocation but not to predict the effect.

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 all five parameters (including the format enum and the project_id ID/path formats) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'content or title' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing wiki page'), and scopes it to 'content or title', which cleanly distinguishes it from create_wiki and get_wiki in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 word 'existing' implies the page must already exist, which is a minimal usage condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer create_wiki instead, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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