Re-render a page

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds a meaningful safety guarantee: 'Changes no content and cannot lose anything.' This clarifies that the operation is non-destructive, which is valuable and not fully implied by idempotency. It does not discuss errors or side effects like cache invalidation, but the main behavioral trait is covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and why it is safe. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and safety. There is no output schema and the description does not explain the return value, but this is a minor gap for an action whose primary effect is the regeneration itself.

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% and page_id is already documented as a 'Numeric Wiki.js id.' The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond tying the id to a page's source HTML, so the baseline score 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 names a specific action and resource: 'Forces Wiki.js to regenerate one page’s HTML from its source.' It clearly identifies the affected resource (one page) and distinguishes this from broader rebuild/refresh operations like rebuild_page_tree or flush_page_cache.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'The fix for a page whose rendering is stale after a theme or renderer change.' It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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