update_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of replace/append/prepend adds the mode behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like versioning, that replace mode overwrites the entire body, or that the page must exist. It adds some value beyond annotations but not much.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Replace, append to, or prepend to a page's markdown body') and then notes the mode default. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or that the page must exist. It also omits that replace mode fully overwrites the body, which is critical for a destructive operation. For a mutation tool with annotations carrying the destructive hint, more contextual detail is expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning to the mode parameter (defaulting to 'replace'). It does not explain body, pageId, or collectiveId beyond what the schema names imply. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify body format or required fields, so it only marginally helps.

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 action — replace, append, or prepend — on a specific resource (a page's markdown body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_page, move_page, or set_page_mode by focusing on content modification, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this to edit page content' or compare with other page-modifying tools. The only hint is the mode default, which is a behavioral detail, not usage selection guidance.

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