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

With annotations only indicating non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds the notification side effect (author notified once even if also mentioned), the permission requirement, Markdown/mention rendering rules, and the fact that a wrong handle is stored as written and never refused. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

It front-loads the action and packs notification, mention, permission, and return-value details without filler. However, it is a dense semicolon-heavy paragraph, so structure could be easier to scan.

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 fully explains the return fields 'notified', 'answered', and 'unresolvedMentions', including why 'unresolvedMentions' matters. Given the mutation complexity and auth requirements, it covers what an agent needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds that 'replyTo' is a comment id from 'get_wiki_page', that the page can be identified by 'pageId' or 'spaceKey' + 'title', and that the body supports rendered Markdown plus the wiki mention form. It does not document every parameter's full constraints, but it adds useful semantics.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Comment on a wiki page') and immediately distinguishes the reply mode via 'replyTo'. It also names where 'replyTo' comes from ('get_wiki_page'), so an agent can tell this apart from a generic comment tool.

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 states the two use cases (new comment vs. reply), how to identify the page ('pageId', or 'spaceKey' + 'title'), and the prerequisite permission to comment. It does not explicitly route agents to 'update_wiki_comment' or 'add_comment' for other comment operations, so it is clear but not fully alternative-aware.

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