Edit Wiki Page Content

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

The description discloses multiple critical behaviors beyond the minimal annotations (only openWorldHint: false): read-modify-write non-atomicity, allow_merge for concurrent edits, exact matching requirements (including replace_all semantics), failure conditions for missing/ambiguous matches, and YFM content limitations. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then incrementally adds necessary details (exact matching, atomicity warning, retry danger, YFM note). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a complex mutation tool.

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 (5 params, sequential replacements, non-atomic behavior), the description covers all essential aspects: how it works, failure modes, concurrency handling, content format, and a pointer to a YFM cheatsheet resource. The presence of an output schema (from context signals) means return values need not be explained. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke this 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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that replacements are applied sequentially, that each old_text must match exactly once unless replace_all is set, and that failures abort the entire call. It also clarifies the merge parameter's role in concurrent edits.

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 states 'Edit a Yandex Wiki page by exact-text replacements, without resending the whole page', which clearly identifies the verb (edit), resource (Wiki page), and method (exact-text replacements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_update (full page rewrite) and page_append_content (appending), as it specifies the targeted, in-place replacement approach.

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 for small, precise edits (vs. full page resend) and warns against blind retries. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare directly to siblings like page_update or page_append_content. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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