set-wiki

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key global side effect: the chosen wiki becomes the implicit default for other tool calls that omit "wiki". It does not mention persistence scope, permissions, or whether the change is reversible, which leaves some gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 short sentences: the action first, then the consequence, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter setter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and understand its effect. Only the persistence/permission details are missing, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single "name" parameter is fully documented in the schema as the registered wiki to set as default. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (default wiki) and explains the concrete outcome: which wiki is used when the "wiki" parameter is omitted. This clearly separates it from siblings like add-wiki, remove-wiki, and list-wikis, which manage the registry rather than the default pointer.

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?

Explains the context in which this matters (multiple wikis registered) and what it affects downstream, so an agent can infer when to call it. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what happens on a single-wiki setup or how to reset the default), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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