Update a page

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the idempotentHint annotation: ambiguous or missing old_text matches are refused, concurrent edits are detected and refused unless force=true, and metadata-only updates are allowed. This richly informs the agent about side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses three dense, purposeful sentences. Every clause contributes behavioral or usage guidance, with no redundant padding 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 13-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the most decision-critical aspects: content vs edits, edit uniqueness, concurrency protection, force override, and metadata-only updates. The remaining details are adequately handled by the rich input schema and the expected_updated_at notes about get_page.

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 coverage is high (85%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful conceptual grouping—content replaces the whole body, edits are surgical and require unique old_text, and metadata can be changed independently—which helps an agent understand parameter relationships beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Changes a page' and then specifies the two primary update modes: replacing the whole body via content and performing surgical find-and-replace via edits. It also clarifies that metadata fields can be updated without touching the text, making the tool's scope distinct from create_page, move_page, and delete_page.

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 context on when to use content vs edits and explains the concurrency/force behavior. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, such as when to prefer convert_page_editor for changing editor format or create_page for a new page.

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