update-page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that in diff mode the server fetches current content, applies the patch, and saves; that append/prepend do not require reading current content; and that full replacement can be costly. While it doesn't cover auth or reversibility, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections: WORKFLOW, EDIT MODES, and WIKITEXT STYLE GUIDE. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow. While the style guide is verbose, it is relevant for correct use with MediaWiki. The bullet lists and capitalization of key constraints 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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full workflow, all edit modes, essential constraints (use exactly one mode), and even provides a style guide for proper wikitext. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the edit modes as mutually exclusive options and providing strategic guidance (e.g., diff preferred, content avoided for large pages). It clarifies the purpose of section numbers and the meaning of append/prepend, which enriches the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update an existing wiki page,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from siblings like create-page and delete-page by emphasizing 'existing' and outlining multiple edit modes. The specificity of update modes (diff, section, append, prepend, content) further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Explicit WORKFLOW instruction says to first call get-page, then this tool. It also provides mode-specific guidance: diff for surgical edits, section for single sections, append/prepend when no need to read, and content for full replacement (with a warning to avoid for large pages). This clearly tells when to use the tool and how to choose among its modes.

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