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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds: it explains reply notification semantics, mention handling, permission requirements, and the exact response fields including the unresolvedMentions edge case. This goes well beyond a basic 'comment on a page' statement.

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 long but information-dense, and it front-loads the core action before diving into notification, identification, and response details. Every clause covers a question an agent would need answered, though the dense single-paragraph structure could be slightly more scannable.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers page identification, reply semantics, permissions, Markdown rendering, mention syntax, and all response fields. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the reply notification behavior tied to replyTo, the mention syntax, and why unresolvedMentions is important. Some redundancy with schema descriptions exists, but the description still enriches the parameters.

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 opens with the precise action 'Comment on a wiki page, or reply to one of its comments', naming both the resource and the key alternative behavior. It is clearly distinct from generic add_comment and other wiki tools because it centers on commenting and replying to existing comments.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: how to identify the page, when replyTo applies, what permission is needed, and how mentions are formatted. It does not explicitly say 'use add_comment for non-wiki comments', so it lacks an explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the intended situations are clear.

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