Sayfayı güncelle (taslak)

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

The description explicitly mentions the `dryRun:true` test mode and the restriction that Header/Footer children cannot be modified. It also notes that operations require IDs from get_page and that insert without anchor places new section before Footer. These are non-obvious behaviors that add value beyond any annotations.

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 dense paragraph with many clauses separated by semicolons and em dashes. While it contains high-value info, the run-on structure makes it hard to parse quickly. Breaking it into a few bullet points or sentences would improve scannability.

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 three update paths (operations, document, meta), key constraints, and the dryRun flag. It does not mention error handling or return values, but given that the tool is an update operation, the absence of output description is acceptable. The description is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already describes the operations array structure and prop formats in detail cliffhanger. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning of each operation type (append, insert, replace, remove, move_section, set_props, etc.) and the rule about Footer placement for insert_section. It also clarifies the meta vs operations vs document distinction.

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 updates a page draftlying, then specifies the three modes: operations, document, or meta. It uses specific verbs (append, insert, replace, remove, move_section) and names the resource (page), making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use operations vs document vs meta, and explains how to obtain IDs (from get_page outline) and where new sections are placed (before Footer). This goes beyond basic context, though it doesn't compare to sibling tools like `create_page` or `publish_page`.

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