wikijs_update_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing page', which restates the tool's name and does not clarify partial-update semantics, whether missing optional fields are overwritten, authentication needs, or what happens if the page does not exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is also minimal and relies heavily on schema and sibling names for full context.

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 straightforward update operation, the schema covers all seven parameters and the description conveys the core purpose. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of return behavior or partial-update effects, the description is only minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no supplementary parameter context, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing page in Wiki.js'), which makes the core purpose immediately understandable. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like wikijs_create_page, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 this tool should be used when an existing Wiki.js page needs modification, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that creating new pages should use wikijs_create_page or that deletions should use wikijs_delete_page, so the guidance is only implicit.

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