Coda Update Page

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety basics are covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'replace' overwrites the ENTIRE page versus append adding to the end, and there is no partial inline edit. This destructive-scope warning is genuinely useful, though it omits permission/auth notes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral caveats follow logically. Slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Updates page metadata and/or content' line, but no wasted fluff overall.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values (it still briefly notes returning updated metadata). It covers the content-replacement hazard and format requirement, which are the key operational details; only missing explicit alternative-tool routing and permission prerequisites.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse param docs by explaining the insert_mode semantics (replace overwrites vs append adds) and the content_format requirement, adding real meaning to two params rather than just restating their names.

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 (update) and resource (a page in a Coda doc) and enumerates the updatable fields (name, subtitle, content). Easily distinguished from siblings like coda_update_doc, coda_delete_page_content, and coda_get_page without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the mutation semantics and the content-mode explanation, and it warns that content must be drafted fully before sending. However, it never states when to use this over sibling alternatives (e.g., coda_update_doc vs coda_delete_page_content vs coda_create_page), so routing guidance is only implied.

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