edit_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that only fields passed are changed, which is a key partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention required identifiers, potential null semantics (the schema allows null), return values, or error conditions. The description provides minimal but essential behavioral insight.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose and the partial-update rule without any redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the primary action first, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

The description covers the main action and the partial-update nuance, which is adequate for a simple edit tool. However, it omits how the page is identified (course_identifier and page_url) and does not clarify whether passing null clears a field, despite the schema allowing null. Given the output schema exists (not shown), some return details may be covered, but the description leaves room for misinterpretation around identifiers and null handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only references 'title' and 'body' as the fields to be replaced, leaving 'course_identifier' and 'page_url' unexplained. Since these are required to select the page, the description fails to add meaning for two of the four parameters, providing only partial clarity.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'a page's title and/or body', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from creation and deletion tools by specifying modification of existing content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'update_page_settings', which might be a sibling for other page attributes.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to change a page's title or body. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the routing to the agent's inference. The partial-update note clarifies that only passed fields are changed, which guides usage but does not name sibling tools.

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