coda_replace_page_content

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly implies a destructive write operation (replacing content) but does not disclose details such as whether the operation is idempotent, reverting existing content, or any permission requirements. Basic transparency is present but insufficient for complex scenarios.

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 with no extraneous words. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks completeness. Missing details like whether the replacement is atomic, if partial updates are supported, or size limits. Adequate for straightforward use but not fully exhaustive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'markdown content' already in the schema for the 'content' parameter. No clarification on formatting or constraints.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'replace' and resource 'content of a page', with the format 'markdown content'. It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'coda_append_page_content' which adds content rather than replaces.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coda_append_page_content for appending, coda_peek_page for non-destructive view). The description lacks explicit context for when replacement is appropriate or prerequisites like document ownership.

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