bwiki_edit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic handling of CodeMirror and append mode but does not state that content is replaced by default, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is a mutating tool, and critical behavioral details are missing.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('编辑BWIKI页面内容') and includes only essential additional context (CodeMirror handling, append support). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or what to expect after invocation. It does not mention any result, error behavior, or prerequisites. While the core action is clear, the lack of outcome information leaves the description incomplete for a mutation tool.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of append mode adds little beyond the schema's description of the 'append' parameter. It does not introduce new semantic meaning for other parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool edits BWIKI page content, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions automatic handling of the CodeMirror editor and support for append mode, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bwiki_get_content and bwiki_navigate. The purpose is unambiguous and directly supports correct selection.

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 implies usage by stating it handles page editing automatically, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The append-mode hint gives some context, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools or conditions for non-use.

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