ado_update_wiki_page

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

The description discloses that ETag handling is automatic, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, annotations are empty, and the description does not cover other aspects such as whether it fully replaces content, requires specific permissions, or returns response data. The ETag mention adds some transparency but is incomplete.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavior (ETag handling). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 update action, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details like error scenarios, page existence requirements, or what happens on success (no output schema). The ETag automation is a plus but the overall context feels slightly incomplete.

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% with all four parameters documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantic context is provided.

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 explicitly states it updates an existing wiki page's content, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('wiki page'). It also mentions automatic ETag handling, which adds value. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_wiki_page' (creates new) and 'delete_wiki_page' (deletes).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., page must exist) or conditions where this tool is inappropriate. The sibling set includes create/delete wiki page tools, but no explicit selection criteria are given.

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