coda_update_page

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains that updates can be metadata-only or content updates, outlines replace/append modes, warns against partial inline edits, specifies format consistency, and mentions return value. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true).

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 very concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds essential detail without fluff. No redundant or wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema, few enums), the description is quite complete: covers what can be updated, modes, format, and return value. It could briefly mention that doc_id and page_id_or_name are required or that updates are idempotent (annotations already signal idempotency), but overall it suffices.

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 behavioral implications of parameters (e.g., 'replace' overwrites entire page, 'append' adds to end) and the requirement that content format matches. This goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool updates a page's name, subtitle, or content in a Coda doc, distinguishing it from create, delete, and other page-related tools. The verb 'update' and resource 'page' are specific and 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (to update page metadata/content) and how to use (modes: replace vs append, draft full content locally, matching format). It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context with siblings implies differentiation.

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