update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'modify existing page content' which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting content), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Korean ('기존 페이지 내용 수정') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mutation operation with 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output expectations, and usage guidelines, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in context with siblings like 'append_to_page' and 'delete_page'.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (path, content, properties). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '기존 페이지 내용 수정' (modify existing page content) clearly states the verb (modify) and resource (page content), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'append_to_page' or 'create_page'. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what 'modify' entails compared to other page operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_to_page' (for adding content) or 'create_page' (for new pages). The description implies it's for existing pages but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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