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

Annotations already flag the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: dry run is the default, edits are live and audited, and self-setting the image removes it from Wikidata sync. It doesn't state what happens on conflicting arguments (media_id + commons_token) or permission requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its two sources before branching into link/clear semantics, then closes with the default-dry-run note and the alternative tool. Dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information; only mild compression would improve it.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and conflict/idempotency behavior is covered by base_revision_id and idempotency_key schema descriptions. Remaining gap is the interaction between the mutually exclusive image-source arguments and what happens if none are supplied.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undescribed params: it explains media_id and commons_token origins, clear:true semantics, and that link sets a click-through address ('' clears it) requiring Link images. It leaves the mutual exclusivity of media_id/commons_token/clear implicit and adds nothing on entry, dry_run, or summary already documented in the schema.

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 precise verb+resource ('Put an image on an entry … or take the image off') and enumerates the two input routes (media_id from media_catalog/get_entry, commons_token from search_commons_images) plus the clear flag. An agent can distinguish this from set_entry_gallery, upload_image, or propose_entry_change without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent: use media_catalog/get_entry for existing site media, search_commons_images for Commons files, and propose_entry_change 'to ask a reviewer instead.' It gives clear context but does not draw the boundary against adjacent siblings like set_entry_gallery or upload_image/upload_image_from_url.

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