Edit Page Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the authentication requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about whether content fully replaces existing wikitext, what happens on a missing page or edit conflict, or whether minor edits suppress notifications.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. The auth prerequisite is placed second, which is reasonable, though the description is arguably too terse rather than wasteful.

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 destructive write operation with zero annotation coverage, the description is thin: it omits overwrite semantics, conflict handling, and failure modes. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the behavioral contract for editing is largely missing.

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 100% with clear per-field descriptions for title, content, summary, and minor, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact or what defaults imply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Edit an existing wiki page"), and the word "existing" correctly frames it as a mutation of an already-present page rather than creation. It does not explicitly name siblings like create_page_tool or delete_page_tool, but the name and phrasing make the distinction fairly evident.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus create_page_tool or move_page_tool, no prerequisites beyond "Requires authentication," and no note that the target page must already exist. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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