set-wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the global side effect of setting the default wiki (affects other calls with omitted 'wiki' param). It doesn't mention persistence or validation, but it's sufficiently transparent for a simple setter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every clause adds value, including the conditional context and the effect on other calls.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description fully explains the purpose and the behavioral consequence. It's complete for its scope, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid names or persistence, which are not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the 'name' parameter to the 'wiki' parameter used elsewhere, clarifying that the name must be a registered wiki and that it becomes the fallback.

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 uses the specific verb 'set' plus the resource 'default wiki', and it explains the effect on other tool calls when the 'wiki' parameter is omitted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add-wiki and remove-wiki.

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 clear context: 'When multiple wikis are registered' and explains the consequence for other calls. It implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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