Convert a page to another editor

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds a valuable caveat that Wiki.js does not translate the body during conversion, which is the most surprising behavior. However, it omits the two-phase confirmation flow implied by confirm_token and does not state whether converting destroys or irreversibly replaces the previous storage format.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the critical translation caveat follows immediately, and the usage guidance closes with a clear boundary. Every sentence 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 100% schema coverage and the idempotency annotation, the description covers the key use case and the most surprising conversion behavior. The main gap is the lack of explicit mention of the confirmation workflow and return values, but the input schema's confirm_token description compensates for that. No output schema is present, but the essential context for correct selection and invocation is provided.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as path format, locale identity, or the confirm_token workflow. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Changes the storage format of a page') and clearly identifies the resource and the operation's scope. The 'not to reformat one' clause explicitly distinguishes this conversion-oriented tool from content-editing siblings like update_page or render_page, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('correct a page created with the wrong editor') and a when-not-to-use ('not to reformat one'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the positive and negative guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly among the listed sibling tools.

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