update_page

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, whether omitted fields are left unchanged or set to null, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be better structured by separating the primary purpose from the list of modifiable fields.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, nested object) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the return value structure, the effect of the insertion_mode parameter, or the behavior when optional fields are omitted. The description leaves many usage details unspecified.

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 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description lists only a subset of parameters (name, subtitle, icon, visibility, content) and omits critical ones like doc_id, page_id_or_name, image_url, and the nested structure of content_update. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of the required identifiers.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'page', and lists specific properties (name, subtitle, icon, visibility, HTML/markdown content), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like create_page or delete_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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing page, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_page for new pages, get_page for retrieval). No guidance on prerequisites or contexts where the tool should be avoided.

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