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

Annotations already flag destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful operational context: anyone with the link can read the page, user confirmation is advised, edit access is required, and the API-key scope is `wiki:pages:write`. It also discloses the 409 conflict for taken tokens and the auto-generation behavior when `token` is omitted.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core action and return value, then covers optional parameters, the public-exposure warning, permissions, and scope. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the result shape, exposure risk, permissions, scope, and token conflict behavior. One gap is that it does not state what happens if the page is already shared, which matters because the annotations mark the tool as non-idempotent.

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 six parameters, including `token`, `showAuthor`, `account`, and `workspace`. The description adds a useful 409 conflict detail for `token`, but otherwise mostly repeats schema-level parameter information and does not explain `account` or `workspace` behavior further.

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 a specific verb and resource: enabling a public share link for a single page. It also states the return value (`PublicShareInfoDTO` with `publicUrl`), making the tool's outcome clear. The verb 'Enable' contrasts sufficiently with sibling tools such as `wiki_disable_page_share` and `wiki_get_page_share`.

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 usage context: confirm with the user before enabling because the page becomes publicly readable, and edit access is required. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as `wiki_check_public_slug` when choosing a custom token, but the core when-to-use guidance is strong.

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