Append Wiki Content

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

Annotations are minimal (non-destructive, open-world false). The description adds value by disclosing YFM format specifics, warning that GitHub extensions like '[!NOTE]' and raw HTML are not supported, and pointing to a YFM cheatsheet resource. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds format guidance. No redundant text. Every sentence earns its place, and critical info 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?

Given 5 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main operation and content format. It could be more explicit about the mutual exclusivity of slug and page_id (though the schema mentions it). The reference to a YFM resource is helpful. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a focused append tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant context for the 'content' parameter by explaining the YFM Markdown format and unsupported extensions. Other parameters (slug, page_id, location, anchor) rely on schema descriptions. Overall, the description enriches one parameter, raising the score above baseline.

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 action ('Append content to the top, bottom, or anchor of a Yandex Wiki page') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like page_update or page_edit, which would help an agent decide when to use append versus replacement.

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 usage context (appending to an existing page at specific locations) but provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., page_update for full content replacement, page_add_comment for comments). It also does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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