update_page

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists supported operations (append, prepend, insert, replace, delete) and implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states primary purpose, second sentence summarizes supported operations, third sentence gives the key prerequisite. No filler or redundant information.

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 complex tool with patch commands, the description explicitly mentions the operation types and the prerequisite call to get_page. It does not explain return values or errors, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden. The combination of schema and description provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by explaining the use of element IDs for precise targeting, which clarifies the 'target' parameter and the workflow. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 an existing OneNote page by applying patch commands.' It specifies the exact resource (OneNote page) and the action (update with patch commands), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_page and get_page.

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 a concrete usage directive: 'Call get_page with include_ids=true first to obtain element IDs for precise targeting.' This guides the agent on a prerequisite step, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond implying that get_page should be used before this tool.

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