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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the notification side effect ('they get a notification that opens the page'), the re-ask behavior ('about the edition the page is at now'), and the non-revoking semantics of release. It adds no detail on permission failures or what happens when an entry cannot read the page.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries non-redundant information. Some sentences, such as 'Somebody already named is asked again, about the edition the page is at now', are densely phrased enough to slow comprehension.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects and both modes. It stops short of describing failure behavior and whether re-asking clears earlier approvals, which an agent might need before invoking it.

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?

The schema documents all four parameters fully (100% coverage), and the description still adds constraints the schema does not: the 'a,b' format, the list_users source, the read-access prerequisite, and the precise meaning of release. The only gap is the lack of detail on the 'note' parameter.

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 a concrete verb and resource: it names the approvers of a wiki page and notifies them. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools approve_wiki_page, withdraw_wiki_page_approval or set_wiki_page_readers, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 clear operating conditions: 'who' must be able to read the page, entries come from list_users, and 'release: true' switches the tool into removal mode. What is missing is routing to withdraw_wiki_page_approval, which overlaps with the release path, so the agent gets no explicit 'use X instead' rule.

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