wiki_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the three distinct update modes and their behaviors, describes what gets modified in each case, and specifies the return values on success. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic function.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly organized modes in bullet-like format, and ending with return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple modes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining behavior, parameter interactions, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but covers the essential context needed to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics by explaining how parameters interact to enable different update modes: 'content' for full replace, 'section' + 'section_content' for section patch, and 'title', 'description', or 'tags' without 'content' or 'section' for metadata-only updates. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Update an existing wiki page by path') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like wiki_create_page (create vs update), wiki_get_page (read vs update), and wiki_move_page (move vs update). It provides a verb+resource+scope combination that is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use different modes (full replace, section patch, metadata only) based on parameter combinations. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updating existing pages rather than creating, reading, listing, moving, or searching pages, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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