Update Wiki Page

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, which implies the tool is safe to retry. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that content replacement is full-page, describes Markdown rendering limitations (YFM vs GitHub-specific extensions), and provides a reference to a YFM cheatsheet resource. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 and highly efficient. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and resource, while the second adds critical behavioral nuance (full-page replacement, Markdown compatibility). Every word earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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 has 8 optional parameters and an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description covers the essential update behaviors and Markdown caveats. It could be more complete by noting that parameters like allow_merge or is_silent are optional and have default behaviors, but the schema already documents those. The pointer to the YFM cheatsheet resource fills a gap for users unfamiliar with Yandex Markdown.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameters—it doesn't provide examples, format details, or behavioral notes for parameters like allow_merge or is_silent. It does imply that redirect_to_page_id and clear_redirect relate to redirect behavior, but this is already clear from the schema.

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 verb 'Update,' the resource 'an existing Yandex Wiki page,' and specifies the modifiable fields: title, content, or redirect. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'page_create' (which creates a new page) and 'page_edit' (which might imply a different editing flow), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides useful context such as 'Content replacement is full-page when content is provided,' which guides when to use this tool versus incremental tools like 'page_append_content.' However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or alternatives, like mentioning that for adding comments or attachments, other sibling tools (page_add_comment, page_upload_attachment) should be used instead.

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