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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and explains the actual destruction semantics: only supplied fields change, content replaces the entire text rather than appending, and an empty string clears content or summary. It also discloses that prior text survives in revision history, giving the agent a recoverability signal the annotations do not carry.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: what can be changed, how partial updates behave, what clearing does, and what the read-first prerequisite is. The scope statement is front-loaded and there is no 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: mutation scope, replacement vs. merge behavior, clearing semantics, and recoverability via revision history. It is slightly thin on what the call returns or whether the updated page is echoed back, but that is a minor omission given the schema documents all four inputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: the partial-update rule ('Only supplied fields change'), full-replacement semantics for content, and the empty-string clearing convention for both content and summary. It does not, however, restate the id parameter's role or the 200-char summary cap.

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 and resource ('Rename an Info page, change its summary, or rewrite its text whole') and enumerates exactly which fields are editable, which distinguishes it from create_info/delete_info and from the update_* siblings for other resource types.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a prerequisite workflow: 'Read the current text with get, kind info, first,' naming a concrete sibling and parameter. It gives clear when-to-use context but offers no when-not guidance (e.g., use create_info if no page exists yet, or update_* for other resource kinds).

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