wiki_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parsing behavior and supported file types, but lacks critical side-effect information such as whether ingestion overwrites/merges existing pages, requires specific permissions, or is destructive. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. It immediately states the primary action and then adds valuable detail about parsing and supported file types, with no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core functionality and parsing details but omits what the tool returns or how it affects existing data. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the outcome and potential side effects for an ingest tool, which it does not.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description's additions are modest. However, it explicitly states that only .md and .markdown files are supported, which is not present in the schema and clarifies a constraint on the path parameter.

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 ingests markdown files into the wiki and details the parsing process (frontmatter, headings, wikilinks, links). This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling read tools like wiki_search and wiki_get.

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 implies the tool is for adding markdown documentation but does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives like update or capture. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of exclusions.

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