update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key traits: body is ignored if input_file is provided, title defaults to keeping current, body_format has a default of markdown, and version_message is a commit message. It also implies destructive replacement via 'entire page's content.' It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, but the provided behaviors are significant and clearly stated, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a clear leading sentence followed by a concise argument list. The redundancy between the opening statement and the body parameter explanation is minor but not wasteful. Overall, it is succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose, earning a 4.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers essential context: the input_file vs body decision, large-content handling, and default behaviors. It doesn't explicitly explain when to use this tool versus sibling update tools, and it relies on the output schema for return details. Still, the provided context is substantial and practical for an agent, so it earns a 4.

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 fully compensate for parameter semantics. It does so admirably: each parameter is explained with real-world meaning, including the interaction between body and input_file, the allowed values for body_format, and the optional nature of title and version_message. This exceeds the baseline and provides complete semantic clarity.

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 opens with 'Update an entire page's content,' which clearly states the specific action (update), the resource (page), and the scope (entire content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_section and find_replace_in_page, which target subsections or specific content.

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 provides clear context on when to use body versus input_file, explicitly noting that input_file avoids sending large content through the LLM. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_section for partial updates, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance seen in top-tier examples. The guidance is practical and context-rich, earning a 4.

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