knowledge_page

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is destructive and not read-only, and the description does not contradict them. 'Durable log' adds a small behavioral nuance suggesting append_log events persist, but the description does not disclose destructive consequences, path mapping behavior, or how actions like move/delete behave.

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?

The text is extremely short and front-loaded with the resource name, but for a tool with 13 parameters and six distinct actions it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It reads more like a label than a usable tool description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the one-phrase description is not enough for an agent to safely invoke the right action with the right parameters. The schema and annotations supply some structure, but the description omits important context such as action semantics, path resolution, dry-run behavior, and when to use append_log versus a page write.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level information beyond the generic CRUD/log idea, while schema description coverage is only 23%. It does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters such as old_string/new_string, replace_all, dry_run, max_chars, or level.

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 phrase 'Page CRUD and durable log' clearly identifies the tool as performing CRUD operations on wiki pages plus a persistent log action, so an agent can tell this is not a file-walking or ingest tool. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like knowledge_document or knowledge_files.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no mention of workflow context, and no exclusions such as 'for raw file operations use knowledge_files.' The word 'Page' offers only an implicit hint that this tool is page-oriented.

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