page_basis

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

Goes beyond the annotations: mark/confirm require `version` and are refused if the basis note moved on ('nothing changes' semantics per schema), remove drops the reliance, and changes are local stdio only. Idempotency and non-destructiveness are already declared by annotations, so no credit there, but the version-refusal behavior is genuinely useful.

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 purpose, then the trigger condition, then compact per-action clauses. No filler; the telegraphic style stays readable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does convey what diff returns ('the text relied on next to the text now'), but it says little about what mark/confirm/remove return or what a pending basis looks like after each action. Adequate for a small 4-param mutation tool but not exhaustive.

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%, and the description's version note ('the basis note's page.version from read_page') largely repeats what the schema already says, including the warning that it is not the citing page's version. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: tracking a wiki page's reliance on another page. Implicitly distinguishes from the code-facing sibling page_code_basis by framing it as a text/basis-note relationship, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when read_page, list_pages or recall shows a `pending` basis', and each action word is given a one-line role. It does not say when not to use it or route to page_code_basis for code dependencies, which is the main missing piece.

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