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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds real workflow context beyond that: source is sanitized and must be treated as untrusted, reviewed and edited before mutation, and edits must round-trip through update_page with expectedVersion (optimistic concurrency). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the added operational context is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with the returned fields front-loaded before the optional flags, so a reader can stop early. The second sentence is long and packs a multi-step review/approve/update workflow into a parameter description, but each clause carries actionable 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, version, contentSha256, URL) plus what the flags add. Combined with the annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pageId semantics and any auth prerequisites are unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the two booleans: it explains that includeHtmlSource returns complete sanitized HTML and includeDiagramSource returns retained diagram JSON plus theme, including the implication that diagram source is only available when previously retained. Only the required pageId is left unexplained, which is a minor gap given its obvious role.

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 and enumerates what the read returns (status, version, contentSha256, URL), which is concrete rather than tautological. It also marks the read/write boundary by naming update_page as the follow-up mutation tool, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_pages or get_page_sharing.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: set includeHtmlSource to get sanitized presentation HTML, includeDiagramSource to get retained diagram JSON and theme, and use update_page with expectedVersion after approval. No explicit "do not use for X" exclusions, but the when-to-use conditions for each optional flag are unambiguous.

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