edit_page_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and return value structure ('Edit result with revision info'), but fails to mention critical mutation behaviors: that it overwrites content completely, error handling for missing pages, or conflict detection.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. While slightly verbose due to the need to document parameters inline (compensating for schema gaps), every sentence serves a necessary function with minimal redundancy.

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?

Adequate for basic operation with parameter documentation and return type mentioned (output schema exists). However, as a destructive mutation tool without annotations, it lacks completeness regarding error states, permissions, and content overwrite warnings that would be necessary for safe agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters (title, content, summary, minor) including their semantics (e.g., 'New page wikitext content', 'Mark as minor edit') and default values ('default: empty', 'default: False').

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' providing a specific verb (Edit) and resource (existing wiki page). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_page_tool (creates new) and get_page_tool (reads only) by emphasizing 'existing' and the editing action.

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?

States 'Requires authentication' indicating a prerequisite, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_page_tool (e.g., what happens if the page doesn't exist) or warnings about overwrite behavior. Usage is implied but not rigorously constrained.

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