update_page

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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals that body writes depend on a server converter version (v0.71+) and that operation defaults to 'replace', which is actionable behavioral context. It does not explicitly warn that replace overwrites the existing body, but the schema already defines the enum.

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 sentences with no filler: the first identifies the operation and scope, the second adds a critical version constraint and default behavior. Information is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter update operation with annotations and a fairly descriptive schema, this is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around expected return value and overwrite caveats, but an agent can determine how to invoke it correctly.

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 60%, and the description adds context for markdown (server conversion, default operation) while mapping title/icon indirectly. However, it does not elaborate on icon/title formats or page_id semantics beyond the schema, so the compensation is partial.

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 action and resource ('Update a page') and enumerates the exact fields changed (title, icon, Markdown body). The phrase 'in place' differentiates this from sibling move/duplicate/copy tools.

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 use for modifying an existing page rather than creating, moving, or deleting it, but it does not state explicit when-to-use conditions or name alternatives. 'In place' is a weak exclusion for the page-manipulation siblings.

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