Get the newer version behind a conflict

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying it 'Returns' rather than mutates. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the returned version is the conflicting newer one, and the response includes who saved it and when. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two tightly written sentences say exactly what the tool returns, why it exists, and what information is included. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the conflict context, the returned data, and the downstream use case. It stops short of describing exact output structure or null/error behavior, but the description gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in its intended scenario.

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?

The only parameter, page_id, is fully documented in the schema with type and range, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('the version of a page that is newer than the one you read'), and clearly distinguishes this from ordinary page reads by tying it to update_page's conflict behavior. The title reinforces the same focused purpose.

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 trigger: use this when update_page refuses to write due to a conflict, so the newer change can be redone on top instead of discarded. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_page_version, but the conflict-specific context makes the intended usage clear.

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