wikijs_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions environment variable requirements and the confirm token check. It fails to disclose whether the update is atomic, what happens to previous versions, whether it triggers notifications, authentication requirements, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place, but could be slightly improved by separating the prerequisite from the confirm note.

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 the complexity of 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, error handling, validation rules, or the effect of updating the page (e.g., caching, history). The prerequisite and confirm behavior are noted, but much context 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 description coverage is 47%, moderately high. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's behavior but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for this coverage is 3, and the description provides marginal additional semantics.

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 'Update an existing page by ID', specifying the verb (update) and the resource (page by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_page or delete_page through the resource identifier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update_comment, but the resource type is implicit.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires WIKI_MUTATIONS_ENABLED=true') and a conditional behavior for the confirm parameter. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_page, move_page) or when not to use it. This is minimal usage guidance.

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