canvas_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that only passed fields change, that body REPLACES the whole page, that HTML formatting is flattened on round-trip through canvas_get_page, and that renaming preserves the url slug. It stops short of stating permission requirements, failure modes, or whether edits are reversible, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loads the verb, resource, and mutation warning, then organizes per-parameter detail under an Args block. Each sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the mutation/HTML-flattening caveats cover the riskiest behavior. Minor gaps remain around required permissions and error conditions for a write tool with zero annotation coverage, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: page_url is a slug not an id, title/body empty means unchanged, published omitted means leave alone, and course_id defaults to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID. Every parameter's sentinel/empty semantics are explained beyond the bare types in the schema.

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 and resource ('Edit a wiki page') and immediately flags the mutation ('MUTATES the course'). An agent can distinguish it from canvas_get_page, canvas_create_page, and canvas_list_pages without opening any 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?

Names concrete alternatives with selecting conditions: 'read canvas_get_page first if you mean to append' and points to canvas_list_pages as the source of the required page_url slug. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance rather than implied.

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