edit_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'exact string replacement' and 'same contract as edit_issue', but does not elaborate on safety, idempotency, or permissions. The description adds the field-targeting behavior but lacks depth on mutation effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It relies heavily on the input schema and does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the field parameter behavior already in the schema and adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'exact string replacement' and referencing 'edit_issue' contract.

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 tool performs 'exact string replacement' on a page, identifying the specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes between editing content (default) and title via the 'field' parameter, and references the sibling 'edit_issue' tool for consistency.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for pages) and provides guidance on the 'field' parameter for targeting content vs. title. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond referencing 'edit_issue'.

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