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

Annotations only declare the safe/idempotent/not-destructive profile, while the description adds the substantive behavior: on status=conflict no published content changed and change_id retains the proposal, and it explicitly warns against blind overwrites. The idempotency_key reuse rule complements idempotentHint=true.

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 core action and constraints, and the conflict/retry guidance is ordered logically. It is dense and sentence-packed, but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the failure-mode behavior is covered well; however, the description never states what a successful call returns (e.g. new revision or change_id), leaving the agent to infer the outcome shape after a non-conflict write.

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 80% schema coverage the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds the mutual-exclusivity constraint between patches and html and reinforces the meaning of base_revision (the revision you read) and idempotency_key (reuse only for identical retries). It stops short of explaining patch matching/failure behavior beyond the schema's 'exact text matching once'.

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 ('Contribute to a shared page') plus the mechanism (base_revision from a prior read), which is clearly distinct from page_get, page_history and page_create. It does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so it falls 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules: prefer sequential exact patches, otherwise replace html, never both; metadata-only edits allowed. It also spells out the conflict and restore workflows step by step, naming the tools to consult (page_get, page_history) and the retry condition (new key/base revision).

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