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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: read-modify-write merge semantics, the requirement for space ADMIN and the `wiki:spaces:write` scope, and an outward-facing warning that enabling exposes the space to anyone on the internet. The destructive/openWorld hints are reinforced rather than contradicted, and the merge rule is the single most important behavioral fact for a partial-update 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?

The critical distinction and the publish switch are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the warning is placed last for emphasis. It is dense to the point of being a wall of text, and the ten-field enumeration partially restates schema property names, but each item carries a short clarifying parenthetical so little is wasted.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety model, permissions, merge behavior, and field semantics. The remaining gap is the response shape - what the returned settings look like after a merge - which an agent may want when confirming the publish succeeded.

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 69%, and the description fills the gap with actual meaning: it enumerates every configurable field with intent (isEnabled = publish/offline, customSlug = public URL), supplies an enum for viewMode that the schema itself lacks, and states the merge rule so unspecified fields are understood as preserved rather than cleared. Only the generic account/workspace plumbing is left to the schema, which documents it well.

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 states a specific verb and resource in capitals ("Publish / unpublish a space to the PUBLIC INTERNET"), then explicitly separates itself from a look-alike concept: "NOT the space `isPublic` flag (which is internal visibility)." An agent can pick this tool over wiki_get_public_settings or a generic space update 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?

It gives an explicit precondition chain: validate the slug with wiki_check_public_slug first, and get user confirmation before publishing. It also supplies a minimal working invocation ({ isEnabled: true, customSlug: "my-docs" }), so the agent knows both when to call it and the smallest safe payload.

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