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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the exact output shape (unified diff, +/- markers, '# <title>' header line), which is behavior an agent needs to interpret the result.

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-loads the purpose in the first clause and packs format details economically into one paragraph. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the API endpoint reference at the end is marginal but harmless.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose, output format, and usage context — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 slug, revision_id, colony, and against. The description's phrasing ('what one wiki revision changed, or how it differs from the current page') loosely maps to the previous/current enum but adds no syntax 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+resource (diff of a wiki revision) and nails the output semantics: 'as a unified diff of title and content (+ added, - removed; the first line of each side is # <title>)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like colony_wiki_history, colony_get_wiki_revision, and colony_revert_wiki_page.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use it to review an edit before restoring an earlier revision with colony_revert_wiki_page', which names the related alternative action. It does not state when the tool should NOT be used vs. simply fetching the revision, so it stops short of a 5.

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