Edit page text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral constraint that old_text must match the source exactly, plus the Markdown-editor-only restriction. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. what happens when no match is found), permissions, or reversibility, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the constraint/routing information follows in a compact clause chain.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanism, the exact-match requirement, and the sibling routing needed to call it correctly. It stops short of describing error outcomes (no match, multiple matches) and permissions, leaving a modest gap.

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 75% and the schema already documents old_text ('exact text to find, including whitespace and Markdown syntax'), new_text (empty deletes), and replace_all (default false). The description reinforces the exact-match semantics of old_text but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Exact find-and-replace in a page's Markdown source') with the mechanism and the value proposition ('cheap way to fix or extend part of a page without resending all of it'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, update_page, by editor type.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Only for Markdown-editor pages; for WYSIWYG pages use update_page.' It also prescribes the prerequisite workflow ('read the page with get first'), leaving nothing to inference.

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