update_toggle

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is destructive with no rollback, preserves toggle container, deletes and replaces body children, warns of partial failure risks, and explains case-insensitive recursive search. It also details handling of markdown wrappers. This addresses safety and failure modes comprehensively.

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 efficiently written, with critical warning front-loaded ('DESTRUCTIVE — no rollback'). Every sentence adds necessary detail about behavior, risks, and parameter nuances. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure logically flows from warning to purpose to specifics.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context for an agent: what the tool does, how it works, important behavioral traits (destructive, case-insensitive, markdown handling), and a recommendation to duplicate page for safety. All essential aspects are covered, making it unlikely an agent would misuse the tool if the description is followed.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds significant value beyond schema: it clarifies that the markdown parameter is replacement body content (not a wrapper that renames the toggle) and explains how wrappers in markdown are handled. This extra context enhances agent understanding beyond the schema alone.

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's purpose: 'Update the body of one toggle by title from a page.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (toggle body), and scope (by title from a page). The description also explains the search behavior and matching criteria, making it distinct from sibling tools that might update other elements.

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 warns about destructiveness and suggests duplicating the page for irreplaceable content, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_toggle, archive_toggle). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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