unmanned_revise_page

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

With no annotations to indicate mutability or side effects, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does so strongly by disclosing that revisions are append-only, that the whole body is replaced, that current prose must be fetched first, and that new [[names]] create stubs. This prevents the critical mistake of submitting partial body content.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the purpose, the workflow, the whole-body replacement warning, and the stub creation side effect. There is no fluff, no repetition of the tool name, and all content earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the most important operational requirements: preserve existing content, replace the whole body, use the note for change summary, and expect link-created results. It does not describe error conditions, idempotency, or the exact result payload, but the core manual for safe invocation is present.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters semantically. It explains body_md as the wrapping replacement body, entity_id as the existing page to revise, and note as the summary saying what you did. It does not explicitly name each parameter or state the note length, but it conveys meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Post a new revision of an existing page.' It immediately distinguishes itself from create-page and other page-manipulation tools by focusing on revisions. It also gives concrete use cases: filling a stub and contributing to someone else's page.

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 gives actionable context for when to use the tool, such as filling stubs and adding to existing pages. It implies that create_page is for new pages rather than revisions, and revert/merge handle different operations. It does not name these alternatives explicitly or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just 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.