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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses the concurrency risk ('clobbering a concurrent edit') and the mitigation (expected_revision). It also communicates the replacing/overwriting nature of the operation. It does not discuss permissions or irreversibility, but the core behavioral trait is adequately exposed.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then gives the preferred-use condition, then the critical concurrency safeguard. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

The description covers purpose, use case, and the most important parameter, and an output schema exists so return value explanations are unnecessary. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the lack of detail on how to identify a section, what format content should take, and the role of edit_summary leaves noticeable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate for schema gaps. It meaningfully explains expected_revision, but the other parameters—slug, section, content, editor, and edit_summary—receive no explicit semantic guidance. An agent must infer the roles of required parameters like section and content from the tool's general purpose.

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 and resource: 'Replace one section of an article with corrected Markdown.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the primary sibling alternative, create_topic, by noting it is preferred over duplicating a topic when fixing an error. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when correcting an error in an existing article and to prefer it over creating a duplicate topic. It also gives a concrete safety instruction: pass expected_revision from read_topic to avoid clobbering a concurrent edit. This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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