Patch wiki page

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

The description exposes a `replace-body` mode that overwrites the entire page body, and the schema also allows `frontmatterMode: replace`, yet the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction: an agent would be misled into thinking no destructive operation can occur. The `'updated' is always refreshed` note is helpful, but it does not resolve the contradiction.

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 tight and well-organized: purpose, mode list with a condition, the frontmatter-only behavior, and the `updated` side effect. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers mode selection and frontmatter-only usage but leaves important operational details unspecified, such as what happens if a section heading does not exist or how errors are surfaced. The annotation contradiction further undermines an agent's ability to accurately model the tool's side effects.

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. The description adds value by specifying that `replace-section` and `append-section` require `section` and by clarifying that adding `frontmatter` without `mode` is a frontmatter-only update. It does not describe `frontmatterMode`, but the schema already covers it.

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 states a specific action—'Change an existing page without rewriting it'—and enumerates the supported modes, making the tool's purpose clear. It implies a contrast with a full rewrite tool but does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives concrete usage rules: section modes require `section`, `mode` can be omitted for frontmatter-only updates, and `updated` is always refreshed. This tells an agent how to select behavior within the tool, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool like wiki_write_page.

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