Update wiki page

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses how the patch works ('reads the current page, checks for concurrent edits, merges only the fields you supply, and writes the complete page back'), what is preserved, that tags replace the whole list, and that a no-op writes nothing. This is rich, safety-relevant context.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the essential purpose and then explains behavior. Every sentence adds value—covering the patch mechanism, preservation guarantees, tag-replacement caveat, and what the tool doesn't do. No filler or redundant repetition of schema.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior, safety model, and exclusions comprehensively. It doesn't explicitly state the need to provide exactly one of id or path, though that is captured in the schema parameter descriptions. Also, the mention of preservable fields like 'publish window' and 'scripts' could be slightly confusing since those aren't in the editable parameter set, but overall it's complete enough for correct use.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds cross-cutting semantics like the partial-patch merge behavior and preservation rule, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions. However, the per-parameter meaning is already well covered by the schema, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 opens with 'Edit an existing wiki page with a partial patch, safely,' which is a specific verb+resource+behavior. It also explicitly distinguishes from other operations by stating 'This tool never moves, renames, or deletes a page,' setting it apart from sibling tools like wiki_create_page or wiki_restore_page_version.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use the tool: for editing an existing wiki page with a partial patch. It also provides a when-not by stating it never moves, renames, or deletes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use wiki_create_page for new pages'), which would warrant a 5.

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