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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the link is public with no account, exposes only the scene and caption, returns both a link and ready <iframe>, follows subsequent block edits, requires page-edit permission, and writes a history entry. These details materially improve safe invocation.

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?

Purpose and response format are front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the description is long and repeats some schema detail such as sites/days/caption behavior. It could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return payload (link and iframe), permission requirements, history side effect, edit propagation, and removal path. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and understand its effects.

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 meaning by tying 'block' to get_wiki_page's 'anims' numbering and explaining the 'anim' vs 'anim-js' language distinction. However, sites, days, and caption largely restate the schema descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Put'), resource ('one scene of a wiki page'), and target ('other sites'), and immediately clarifies what the resulting link exposes and withholds. This clearly distinguishes creation from update_wiki_embed, delete_wiki_embed, and list_wiki_embeds.

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 the core use case and a permission gate ('Only for somebody who may edit the page'), plus names delete_wiki_embed as the removal alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with update_wiki_embed for modifying an existing embed, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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