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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing implicit lease acquisition, a side effect not visible in annotations. However, 'rewrites and normalizes' is left undefined: no mention of what normalization does, whether an invalid route is rejected, or what happens if another editor holds the lease.

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, zero filler, with the core effect stated first and the lease side effect second. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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?

The lease behavior is a genuinely important disclosure for a mutation tool, and it is present. But with no output schema, thin schema descriptions, and an undefined 'normalize' operation, the definition leaves an agent unable to predict outcomes for the two most likely failure modes: lease contention and invalid route syntax.

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 only 25% — only `leaseToken` is documented. The description reinforces `leaseToken` semantics (consistent with the schema note) and hints that `route` is a definePage literal, but `websiteId` and especially `name` are undocumented in both places, and the agent must guess whether `name` is the page identifier or a display label.

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: 'Rewrites and normalizes a page's `definePage` route literal.' This is clearly distinct from metadata_edit or files_upsert in intent, though the description never names those siblings explicitly, leaving the agent to infer that this is the narrow, route-specific edit path.

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 only contextual guidance is the lease-token condition ('Takes the edit lease when no `leaseToken` is sent'), which tells the agent how to behave during invocation but not when to pick this tool over files_upsert or metadata_edit. Usage is implied by the tool name and the route literal wording rather than stated.

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