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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive; the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them: every save creates a revertible page version, the save is restricted to the exact previewed operations and document_version, and the response includes the updated page and applied consequences. It also mentions the workspace tier requirement. This is exactly the kind of added behavioral transparency expected when annotations are present.

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 front-load the purpose, then state the key constraint, side effect, return value, and prerequisite. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return content (updated page with AHM and new document_version, plus applied consequences), the preview requirement, versioning behavior, and workspace eligibility. Given the tool's complexity and destructive hint, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and anticipate the outcome.

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?

The input schema already documents each parameter and covers 100% of them, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics: the preview_token must match EXACTLY the supplied operations and document_version, and saving without a preview is impossible. This relationship between parameters is not in the schema and materially improves correct usage, so a 4 is warranted.

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 opening sentence, 'Apply a previously previewed update to a wiki page,' uses a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'previously previewed' immediately distinguishes this from preview_wiki_page_update. It also names the update, versioning, and workspace requirements, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes the workflow clear: it must follow preview_wiki_page_update and requires its preview_token. It explicitly states that saving without previewing is impossible by design and that a Pro or trial workspace is required, which are important usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations where one should not use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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