Update page

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds valuable context: every update creates a restorable version, and expected_version can reject stale updates. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose; the second adds key behavioral details. No wasted words.

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 moderately complex update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, versioning behavior, and concurrency. It omits prerequisites like the page existing, but that is implied and covered by the 'page' parameter schema.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining expected_version's role in preventing concurrent overwrites, adding meaning beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 'Update a page's title and/or content' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_page, append_to_page, and delete_page.

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 editing existing pages but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_page or append_to_page. It does provide contextual detail about versioning and concurrency control, which informs usage.

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