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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it discloses that the call acquires the edit lease automatically when no leaseToken is supplied, which is a side effect an agent could not infer from the schema. It still omits what happens to fields absent from the replacement object and what errors occur if the lease is held elsewhere.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary targeting rule front-loaded before the lease side effect. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two decisions that matter most (page vs. site defaults, lease handling). It is still thin on the required payload's structure and on whether the acquired lease must later be released, which an agent needs before calling safely.

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 only 50%, and the most important parameter — the required `metadata` — is declared as an empty schema with no description at all; the description only characterizes it as a "complete metadata object," so its shape and allowed keys remain undocumented. The `page` and `leaseToken` semantics are already fully spelled out in the schema, so the description adds little there.

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 ("Replaces") and precise resource ("a page's complete metadata object" or the site defaults in website_config), so an agent knows exactly what is written. It does not name or differentiate itself from near siblings such as websiteSourceCode_pages_editRoute or websiteSourceCode_files_upsert, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase "Replaces a page's complete metadata object" implicitly warns that this is a full overwrite rather than a merge, which is a usable decision signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to an alternative for partial edits or for route-level changes, leaving selection partly to inference.

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