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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: base_version provides optimistic-concurrency semantics ('makes the write fail if the page changed since you read it') and it discloses the whole-text replacement behavior. Still omits auth/permission or rate-limit context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then the key parameter caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. Slightly terse on the concurrency point but not padded.

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 write tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential behaviors: create-vs-replace, the edit_page alternative, and base_version failure semantics. Gaps remain around permissions and the meaning of path/text, but the core invocation context is present.

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 description coverage is 50%; path, text, and base_version carry no schema description. The description compensates for only base_version (its concurrency role), leaving path and text unexplained and adding nothing about note/agent/workspace beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 ('Create a page or replace its whole text') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling edit_page. The dual create/overwrite framing is slightly muddled but an agent can still tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-not rule: 'If a page on the topic exists, use edit_page.' Names the alternative, which is stronger than implied guidance. It stops short of 5 because it never mentions append_page, and the condition 'on the topic' is fuzzier than a path/identity check.

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