ado_wiki_update_page

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so fully. It discloses mutation semantics, conditional vs unconditional overwrite, conflict behavior, return values (updated content and new etag), and authorization requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then covers etag guidance, return values, and auth requirements in a tight sequence. Every sentence adds needed context and there is no filler or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a mutating operation, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: return values, concurrency behavior, auth scope, and when to omit etag. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: where the etag comes from and what happens with and without it, plus how create and update are tied to the path. It stops short of 5 because the etag description mostly paraphrases the schema and no parameter value constraints or examples are added.

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 names the specific action ('Create or update an Azure DevOps wiki page') and the resource (wiki page at a path). It also explains the create/update conditional behavior, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like ado_wiki_get_page and ado_wiki_list_pages.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: pass the etag from ado_wiki_get_page to prevent overwriting concurrent edits, omit it for an unconditional overwrite, and requires vso.wiki_write PAT scope. It also names the failure mode (conflict error), so an agent knows exactly when to use this tool and how to prepare the call.

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