Update Wiki Page

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the tool performs a partial patch (not a full replacement), and the optimistic-concurrency version field is handled automatically, with a warning not to pass it. These are not conveyed by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and add significant context for correct invocation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and primary semantics. Every sentence provides value: the first states what it does and the patch nature, the second handles a critical concurrency caveat. No wasted 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?

For a simple update tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral nuance (version handling). It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists and the operation's result is relatively predictable. It is arguably complete for the complexity level, though a brief note on the response could improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage at 33% (only 'id' has a description), the description adds essential meaning by explaining that only included fields are changed, which directly informs usage of 'slug' and 'content'. It also warns against passing the 'version' parameter, which is not in the schema. This compensates for the low schema coverage, though it does not elaborate on the individual parameters beyond the patch concept.

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 action ('Update an existing wiki_page') and specifies 'partial patch' semantics, distinguishing it from create/delete/get operations. The verb and resource are explicit, and the partial-patch qualification adds precision.

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 gives clear usage guidance: it is for updating existing wiki pages, and it explains the partial-patch pattern ('only include the fields you want to change'). It also instructs not to pass the version field. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like wiki_page_create or wiki_page_delete, but the update context is unambiguous.

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