Update a OneNote page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context: replace overwrites the target element, append is the default, and image sources are supported. The final sentence ('Web image URLs are not accepted here') conflicts with the earlier https image example, creating minor ambiguity about image handling.

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 front-loaded with the default behavior and then proceeds through action-specific rules and image syntax. Most sentences earn their place, but the final sentence about web image URLs is contradictory and could confuse rather than clarify.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the main actions, rename flow, and image handling well. It leaves the position parameter to the schema and has a small internal inconsistency about web image URLs, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description meaningfully extends several parameters: it explains action values, target choices (body, title, element id), and content/image syntax. It does not explain the position parameter, though the schema already documents that one, so it adds clear value over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Adds or changes content') and resource ('existing page'), and its scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like onenote_create_page and onenote_get_page. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 routes each action: default append, prepend to top, insert/replace require a target element id from onenote_get_page with format=html_with_ids. It also gives the exact recipe for renaming via target=title with action=replace. This is clear when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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