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 adds the key detail that 'only the provided fields change,' clarifying that updates are partial rather than full replacements. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or failure conditions, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 three short sentences that immediately state the core action, clarify the partial-update behavior, and provide a critical prerequisite. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

The description covers the core operation and the unique partial-update behavior, and the presence of an output schema handles return-value details. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, it lacks explanations of field semantics and potential side effects, making it only moderately complete for AI decision-making.

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 only 29% (only 'id' has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining the other parameters (tags, title, content, isPrivate, description, isPublished). It merely states that provided fields change, but does not define their meaning or constraints, so it fails to add sufficient value for the majority of parameters.

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 begins with 'Update an existing page by id,' which clearly specifies the verb (update) and resource (page). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_page, delete_page, and move_page by focusing on modifying an existing page rather than creating, removing, or relocating it.

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 clear context by instructing users to 'Get the id from get_page, list_pages or search_pages first,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare it to alternatives (e.g., when to use create_page instead), so it stops short of full guidance.

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