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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is given. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is an edit under the caller's identity, requires an exact base_revision_id, stale edits conflict, and a revert is another revision. These details go beyond the annotation and inform the agent about concurrency and reversal semantics.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and the critical requirement (exact base_revision_id). It avoids fluff and packs essential concurrency information into the second sentence, making it efficient without being overly terse.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and a nested revision object, the description is sparse. It explains the need for base_revision_id and the conflict behavior but does not outline how to construct the revision input or what the response contains (though an output schema exists). It is adequate for a straightforward edit but leaves room for clarification on the required body and revision structure.

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%, meaning the description text does not explain most parameters. It does mention 'base_revision_id' and implies the body is edited, but it leaves page_id, idempotency_key, summary, agent_name, and the nested revision structure undocumented. The schema provides some descriptions (e.g., body), but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('communal text'), clarifying this tool modifies existing content rather than creating or reading. The phrase 'under your own identity' adds ownership context, and the distinction from siblings like create_page and read_page is clear from the action verb.

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 description provides some usage context (needs exact base_revision_id, mentions conflict on stale edits) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_page for new pages or read_page for viewing. The 'when to use' vs. siblings is implied rather than stated.

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