taiga_wiki_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Partial' hints at the update scope, but it fails to disclose conflict-check behavior, permission requirements, error conditions, or the return value. This leaves the agent unaware of important side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter description coverage, the minimum viable description is insufficient. An agent cannot reliably infer when to use the tool, what parameters to provide, or what to expect in response, especially for a mutation tool with conflict-check semantics.

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 only 50%; slug and content lack descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by saying 'partial', but it does not explain what slug or content represent or how they are used. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('wiki page'), and adds 'partial' to indicate PATCH-like behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and delete.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_wiki_create or taiga_wiki_get_by_slug. It does not mention prerequisites like fetching the current version before updating or handling conflict errors.

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