Update Page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds context about the edit types and target selectors, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if an operation fails midway, whether edits are atomic, or impact on child elements). Since annotations cover the basic destructive nature, the description adds some but not rich behavioral insight.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the verb and action list, then provides essential targeting guidance with a pointer to read_page. No filler or redundant phrasing; every clause earns its place.

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 complexity of the operations array and the mutation nature, the description is adequate. It tells agents what it does and how to target correctly (via read_page). The schema covers parameter details and ordering, and annotations cover destructive semantics. The only missing piece is a note on return behavior or error handling, but that's not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that targets can be body, title, or data-id selectors and directs users to read_page for finding data-id values. This extra context helps agents correctly construct the `operations` parameter, which is complex (array of objects). The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 a clear verb ('applies edits'), a specific resource ('an existing OneNote page'), and enumerates the edit operations (append, prepend, insert, replace, delete). It specifies the target kinds (body, title, data-id) and references read_page for obtaining data-id values. This distinguishes it from create_page (creating) and delete_page (removing the page entirely).

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 implies a workflow by telling users to find data-id values in read_page's HTML, which suggests the tool is used after reading a page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of create_page or delete_page, nor does it mention alternative tools. The absence of explicit exclusions leaves some ambiguity, but the context is clear enough for most agents to infer the right usage.

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