Update page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that WYSIWYG pages stay WYSIWYG and Markdown is converted to HTML — which is genuinely useful. However, it never warns that replace mode overwrites existing content, that tags are replaced wholesale, or what auth/permissions are needed for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences: the capability list is front-loaded and the alternative/routing note follows. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers capabilities, the sibling alternative, and one important rendering behavior. It is nearly complete, though the destructive nature of replace mode and tag-replacement side effects are left to the schema.

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 86%, so the schema already documents id, mode, name, tags, markdown, and move targets. The description restates the mode options and adds the Markdown-to-HTML conversion note, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (page) and then enumerates its capabilities: replace/append/prepend content, rename, retag, move. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_page, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

"For a small change inside an existing page prefer edit_page" gives a clear routing rule against the most confusable sibling. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions (e.g. bulk updates, new pages) or prerequisites, but the key alternative is named.

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