Update Page

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the patch-based nature and the need for element IDs, but does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or atomicity of updates. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences: the first defines the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?

Given the moderate complexity of patch operations and the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally mention return values or error conditions. It lacks this information, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome. The prerequisite guidance is helpful, but the overall completeness is only adequate.

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%, and the description summarizes the patch structure (target, action, content) but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'existing OneNote page', and the method 'using JSON patch commands'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete-page' and 'create-page' by emphasizing modification of existing content.

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 explicit guidance to first use 'get-page-content with includeIds=true' to obtain element IDs, which is a necessary prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for other update scenarios.

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