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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Nothing is modified', it returns a preview_token required by update_wiki_page, it lists the specific consequences (blocks added/removed/changed, files permanently deleted, discussions losing anchors, markdown warnings), and it notes the Pro/trial workspace requirement. It doesn't contradict annotations. The only minor gap is not detailing the exact response shape, but with no output schema and rich behavioral disclosure, a 4 is appropriate.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the required-first-step role, lists the returned consequences, names the required token, clarifies non-mutation, gives the operation types and content format, names prerequisite tools, and states the workspace requirement. It is front-loaded with the most important usage constraint ('REQUIRED first step') and has 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 preview/validation tool with 3 fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (consequences + preview_token), what it doesn't do (nothing modified), what prerequisites are needed (get_ahm_spec, show_wiki_page), and when consequences are acceptable. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, document_version, operations) and their nested properties. The description adds context by explaining that operations are block-addressed with AHM content and that document_version comes from show_wiki_page, but it doesn't need to repeat schema details. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('preview'), a specific resource ('wiki page update'), and its role as the REQUIRED first step. It distinguishes itself from update_wiki_page by explaining it validates operations and returns consequences plus a preview_token, and it names sibling tools (get_ahm_spec, show_wiki_page) for prerequisites. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like preview_description_update and update_wiki_page.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'REQUIRED first step of every wiki page update' and 'Review the consequences before saving'. It also gives exclusions/conditions: 'a listed file deletion or discussion unanchoring is only acceptable when the user asked for it' and 'Requires a Pro or trial workspace'. It names alternatives/prerequisites: read get_ahm_spec first, get block ids + document_version from show_wiki_page. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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