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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the cycle guard, the ownership restriction, and critically the two-phase confirmation protocol (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, then confirm_action) that annotations cannot express. No contradiction with destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope comes first and the confirmation protocol is flagged with a label so it is easy to find. Every clause carries actionable information.

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, yet the description supplies the return shape an agent needs (status, action_id, plan_token) and the follow-up tool to call. Mutation semantics, constraints, and the deferred-write model are all covered for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for parent_id (null = root, self/descendant rejected) and for which fields are mutable. It doesn't cover the title maxLength of 255 or that page_id accepts both integer and string.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Edit a personal wiki page") and immediately scopes the editable fields to title/body/parent, keyed by id. That cleanly separates it from create/delete/get siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 concrete operating conditions: use parent_id=null for root, cycles are rejected, and only the caller's own page is editable. It also routes the agent to confirm_action for the actual write. It stops short of saying when to prefer create_wiki_page over this for new pages.

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