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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful optimistic-concurrency context (the write is gated on lock_version being current), but it omits what happens on a version mismatch, whether a token/permission is required, and that 'Replace' overwrites existing page text wholesale — a detail that sits in some tension with destructiveHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the mutation and its guard condition with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a three-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions and no annotations covering failure modes, the description should say what a stale lock_version produces and whether the whole text body is overwritten; those gaps keep it at minimally adequate.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains that lock_version is a concurrency token that must still be current, which is real added meaning. The other two parameters (id, text) get no clarification of format or scope, leaving most of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('wiki page text'), so an agent knows this mutates an existing page rather than creating one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling openproject_update_work_package, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'only when the supplied lock_version is still current' implies a precondition for use, which is more than nothing. However, it never states what to do when the lock is stale (retry? re-fetch via openproject_get_wiki_page?) nor contrasts this with openproject_update_work_package or openproject_create_wiki_page, leaving routing to inference.

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