update_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does signal destructiveness by saying 'Replace the body content', which is the most important trait. However it does not disclose reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to existing formatting/elements not present in the new HTML.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact Args block for the two parameters. No filler text; every line carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotations, however, the description says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, or formatting side effects, leaving a real gap for safe invocation.

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 compensate, and it partially does: page_id is documented as 'persistent OneNote page ID (from list_live_pages)' and content as HTML. This is more than the schema offers, but the HTML expectations (full vs fragment, escaping) remain unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the body content of an existing OneNote page') with the format (HTML), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling append_to_page (replace vs append) but never names that alternative explicitly.

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 word 'Replace' implies this is the whole-body-overwrite option as opposed to append_to_page, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose one over the other. It also gives no prerequisites (e.g. page must exist, required permissions).

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