loop_edit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly mentions the 'append' and 'replace' behaviors (including the destructive nature of replace) and notes the requirement for an authenticated session. This goes beyond a generic statement, though it could further mention outcome or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add one necessary constraint (authentication). Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple edit tool with three parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the modes, and the auth requirement. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the schema's completeness, this remains a well-rounded description.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description essentially restates the mode semantics ('append' or 'replace the body') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Hence, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool edits an existing Microsoft Loop page and specifies the two modes (append Markdown or replace the body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get/list/create by explicitly targeting existing pages for modification.

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 conveys when to use the tool (to modify an existing Loop page) and implicitly discourages using it for creation or retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which would make the guidance even stronger.

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