wiki_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses auto-management of timestamps, auto-routing of pages based on frontmatter, auto-linking with exceptions (code blocks, existing links, URLs), and states that wiki pages are MUTABLE. No contradictions.

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 a single well-organized paragraph, front-loaded with the main action, then details. Every sentence is meaningful, no redundancy.

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 auto-routing and auto-linking behaviors thoroughly. It lacks explicit details on overwrite vs merge behavior when updating an existing page, but overall adequate for a write tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the return_content parameter by explaining its purpose (eliminates follow-up call) and default. No additional detail needed for other parameters.

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 'Create or update a wiki page' with specific resource (wiki page). It differentiates from sibling tools like wiki_read, wiki_delete, etc., and provides scope (page path relative to 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 guidance on when to use return_content to avoid a follow-up wiki_read call, implying efficient workflows. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but context from sibling tools is clear.

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