update_wiki_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that only 'title' is updatable via the wiki API, and that content edits require different tools. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention auth requirements or response format, which is acceptable for a simple rename operation.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, constraint, and alternatives in under 30 words. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about the operation and its constraints. It could mention the expected response status but is not necessary. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds that only title is updatable, which reinforces the role of the 'title' parameter but does not introduce new syntax or format details. This is the appropriate baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Rename' with the resource 'Wiki node', and explicitly qualifies that only 'title' is updatable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_wiki_node, copy_wiki_node, and manage_doc_block by defining exactly what scope the update covers.

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 for when to use this tool: when renaming a wiki node's title. It also implicitly says not to use it for editing content, pointing to docx/bitable/sheet tools instead. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, but the exclusion is clear enough for an agent.

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