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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavior beyond that: notification semantics ('only the people the *edit* newly reaches', watchers not re-announced) and the fact that partial edits return landing positions rather than the comment. It does not restate atomicity or version-refusal, which live in the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the read-first guidance and the two editing modes come before the edge-case details. The em-dash parentheticals make it a single long paragraph, which slightly hurts scannability, but no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: partial edits report where each landed, and the response includes 'notified'. For a 6-parameter destructive mutation, the guidance on versioning, anchoring, and atomic failure is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 still adds value by explaining the mutual-exclusion trade-off between 'markdown' and 'edits', that oldText is matched against the original comment text rather than the result of prior edits, and that an empty inlineSelection converts the comment to a footer comment.

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 ('Edit a comment on a wiki page') and immediately scopes permissions ('your own, or anyone's with full write access'). It is clearly distinguishable from add_wiki_comment, delete_* siblings, and get_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?

Tells the agent to read first with get_wiki_page(withMarkdown: true) to obtain 'markdown' and 'version', then routes between the two editing modes: 'markdown' for full replacement, 'edits' for partial find-and-replace. The inlineSelection empty-string detach case is explicitly framed as the only way to unanchor.

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