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

Annotations already signal a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: server-side version bump and diff computation, rejection of locked/author-only pages, contribution-point side effects, and required bearer token. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, auth, workflow, constraints, and side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details, and the key operational instruction is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, prerequisite fetch, payload shape, server-side behavior, rejection cases, and side effects. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter well. The description restates the 'full revised block array' requirement and adds server-side behavior, but adds little purely parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing Radix Wiki page'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_page. It also clarifies the edit is a full-block replacement, which defines the core operation precisely.

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 gives an explicit workflow: fetch with get_page first, then send the full revised block array. It also notes auth requirements and rejection conditions. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use create_page for new pages,' but the 'existing' phrasing makes the intended scope clear.

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