wiki_write

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: the write is atomic and has side effects on _index.md and _log.md, and shared writes are governed by the namespace policy. Auth/error behavior is still unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the create/overwrite verb and packed into three short clauses with no filler. It is slightly dense with semicolons, but every clause (side effects, scope policy, edit prerequisite) 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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers atomicity, side effects, scope policy, and the read-before-edit prerequisite, while annotations carry the safety signal. Remaining gaps (permissions, failure modes) are minor.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (scope, content, agent_id, page_path, update_index). The description reiterates content-is-full-page and the namespace constraint on scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb pair (create/overwrite) and resource (wiki page), and clarifies the unit is the whole page including YAML frontmatter. It also names the sibling wiki_read for the editing path, so an agent can distinguish the write from the read without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit rule for the edit case ('To edit, wiki_read the page first') and a conditional behavior for scope="shared". It stops short of routing the agent among the other write-adjacent siblings (wiki_share, wiki_dedup), which is why it isn't a 5.

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