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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: uniqueness constraints on old_text, the replace_all escape hatch, section scoping including the heading, and the fact that empty new_text deletes content. It does not mention versioning/concurrency risk or the page_history recovery path, and the deletion behavior sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter rules, and every clause carries operational meaning (uniqueness, scoping, deletion). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the edit-mode semantics are well covered but important context is absent: what base_version does, how workspace targets another space, and that agent must identify the caller. An agent could call it correctly in the common case but would miss concurrency and cross-workspace behavior.

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 only 33%, and the description supplies semantics for four of nine parameters (old_text, new_text, replace_all, section), including their interaction rules. It says nothing about path, agent, note, workspace, or base_version — notably base_version, whose optimistic-concurrency meaning is documented nowhere.

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+resource ("Change part of a page") and the phrase "part of a page" implicitly separates it from whole-page writers like write_page and append_page. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the wording 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?

The description clearly governs mode selection within the tool: old_text for exact-string replacement, section alone for whole-section replacement, both together for scoped replacement, empty new_text to delete. However it gives no guidance on when to reach for edit_page versus write_page, append_page, or change_pages, so cross-tool routing is left implied.

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