update-wiki-page-body

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing concrete failure conditions: error if oldText is absent, error if it occurs multiple times unless replaceAll is set. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before attempting a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does and when to use it, then Rules and Examples as scannable blocks. Every line carries information: no restatement of the name, no filler.

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 destructive, five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers selection, prerequisites, failure modes, and worked payloads. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, and the sibling routing is handled.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: oldText must match the current body exactly and should be copied from get-wiki-page, and replaceAll governs the multi-occurrence case. The worked examples show the parameters in realistic combination, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 first sentence names the specific verb and resource ('Replace part of a wiki page body') and states the scope ('part of'), with a Korean gloss reinforcing intent. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling update-wiki-page, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool ('Use this instead of update-wiki-page when only a few spots in a long page change') and what stays untouched (title and rest of body). It also points the agent at get-wiki-page as the source for oldText, which is an actionable prerequisite rather than implied guidance.

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