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

Adds real context beyond annotations: unset fields are preserved (patch semantics), body fields are full replacements, and the wiki:pages:write scope requirement is disclosed. It also clarifies the webUrl/visibility nuance. It could say more about what destructiveHint means in practice, but the replacement semantics are covered.

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 core action and patch semantics, then conditional body guidance, then the citation/webUrl note. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the API-key scope line is slightly tacked on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully notes page results include webUrl, covering the main return value. For a 7-param mutation tool it gives enough to invoke correctly, though deeper error/edge behavior is absent.

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?

With 57% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the markdown/content exclusivity and directing to get_endpoint_examples for the doc shape. admin params like account/workspace are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 (Update) and resource (an existing wiki page) plus the addressing key (slug), which cleanly distinguishes it from wiki_create_page and wiki_update_space.

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 clear conditional guidance on the body format: pass either `markdown` or `content`, they're mutually exclusive, and `content` is for rich features. It doesn't explicitly address when to choose this over sibling update tools, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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