edit_page

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation and warnings but does not clarify whether changes are persisted, if permissions are needed, or if the tool is a dry-run. The phrase 'Proposes changes' is ambiguous and the return dictionary's 'success' field implies a potential side effect, but no details are given.

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 three sentences, relatively concise, and starts with the core action. However, the second sentence mixes validation and return details, and the third sentence lists return fields, which could be shortened. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the page to edit is identified (likely from context but not stated), what the edit should look like (markdown?), or what errors may occur. The return dictionary is mentioned but its fields are not described in context. Significant gaps remain.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the two parameters ('edit', 'description'). It only mentions a 'description' field in the return value, which could confuse with the input parameter. The description fails to clarify the format or purpose of the parameters beyond their names.

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 it proposes changes to an Evidence markdown page and validates them, but it is ambiguous whether the changes are actually applied or if this is a dry-run. The verb 'proposes' suggests a suggestion, but the return of content implies modification. Purpose is vague and does not clearly distinguish from a simple validation tool.

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 its siblings (debug_code, get_metadata, read_docs). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives no help deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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