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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only, not destructive, not open-world; the description adds far more: the version acts as an optimistic lock and the call is refused on a stale read, the approval is an append-only journal line that is never edited or deleted, later page edits do not erase it but re-mark the approved edition, and the exact authorization set (project lead, company owner, admin, or person named via ask_wiki_page_approval).

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-loaded with the verb and identity constraint, and every sentence contributes (concurrency, immutability, authorization, intent). Slightly long and the closing maxim is rhetorically weightier than necessary, but nothing is filler.

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, yet the description covers what the side effect is, who may perform it, what invalidates the call, and how to undo it — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: 'version' is specifically the value get_wiki_page returned and functions as a concurrency guard that causes refusal, and 'note' is framed as the recorded rationale that persists with the journal line.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Approve a wiki page') and immediately pins the scope: 'IN YOUR OWN NAME, in the edition you read'. It is also clearly distinguishable from the sibling approve-adjacent tools (withdraw_wiki_page_approval, ask_wiki_page_approval) which it names.

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 explicit when-to-use ('do it when your person told you to, not because a page looks finished') and a when-not/exclusion, plus the prerequisite 'read it again first' if the page changed. It also names withdraw_wiki_page_approval as the reversal path and ask_wiki_page_approval as the route to being named on the page.

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