The "Description copied from class" or "Description copied from interface" heading might confuse the reader (see the attached screenshot). It's not immediately clear what's being copied. Is it just the description or the complete method documentation?

If it's the description that is only copied, then why doesn't the reader see a similar indication for individual pieces, such as param, return, throws? As we know, the standard doclet inherits individual pieces of documentation from the hierarchy similarly to how a buffet client picks different foods on their plate. A seemingly monolithic documentation might be in fact assembled from individual pieces.

Indicating what is being copied from where benefits the reader: they get important information that something is *exactly like* something else.

I note that in times past, javadoc provided finer indication (see the attached screenshots). Should we use something similar today? Should we use linkable pictograms instead of text?

Separately. In JDK-8287100 and JDK-8287099 we consistently called an initial or main description as a main description. Do we need to reflect that change in the generated documentation?