page_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful facts — matching is exact/literal, and edits apply to raw storage XHTML rather than rendered text — but omits what happens when no match is found, whether the default replaces only the first occurrence, and whether the write is reversible or requires elevated permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is the right shape for a narrow tool. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but structurally it is clean.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% of parameters undocumented in the schema, this one-line description leaves too much unstated — match-failure behavior, idempotency, and scoping via url/site all go unexplained.

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 60%: 'all', 'url', and 'site' are documented, while the required 'find' and 'replace' have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by implying 'find' is an exact literal string, but adds nothing about 'replace' escaping or the first-match-only default when 'all' is false.

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?

Names a specific verb (find and replace) and a specific resource (the page storage XHTML), and the word 'exact' narrows it to literal matching rather than regex or fuzzy search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as page_update_section or page_append, which also mutate page content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over page_update_section, page_append, or page_get. The only implicit signal is 'exact', which suggests targeted surgical edits rather than section rewrites, but the agent must infer that.

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