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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the decisive runtime behavior: this retired tool 'changes nothing and returns an error naming update_page,' plus the PRO+ entitlement and write-access requirement. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid a wasted, always-failing call; the annotations alone (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) would not reveal it.

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-loaded with what changes and immediately followed by what does not, then prerequisites, then the deprecation warning. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a retired, always-erroring metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: editable fields, scope limit (body excluded), prerequisites, and the error/redirect outcome. Nothing an agent must know to decide whether to call it 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 each parameter (title 1-200 chars, icon max 8 chars or null to clear, parentId null to promote to root). The description only restates the field-to-action mapping (title=rename, icon=emoji, parentId=move) and omits the required pageId, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (update wiki page metadata) and then bounds the scope precisely: 'Does NOT edit the document body, only tree metadata.' It names the three editable fields and their actions (rename/title, icon/emoji, move/parentId), so an agent can distinguish it from update_page, update_document_content, or move_task_to_epic without opening the schema.

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 states when not to use it and what to use instead: the Wiki feature is retired in favour of Pages, existing wiki pages are read-only, and the tool 'returns an error naming update_page.' It also gives the prerequisites ('Requires wikis (PRO+) and write access to the parent project'). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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