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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that title/body/tags replace wholesale (data loss) while headerFields MERGES, plus the needs_confirmation/approvalId flow. This is real behavioral context beyond the annotation. Minor gap: no statement of required permissions/scopes for editing.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and field list; every clause is informative. Slightly dense with em-dashes and parentheticals, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, field-replacement semantics, the confirmation return path, and prerequisite fetches. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the replace-vs-merge distinction with a concrete example ('set the owner leaves status alone') and explains approvalId re-call semantics. It reinforces and slightly extends the schema documentation.

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 (Edits) and resource (an existing page), enumerates the editable fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from compass_pages_create by telling the agent to fix rather than duplicate. An agent can select this over siblings 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?

Explicit routing: use this to FIX mistakes instead of creating a duplicate, fetch current state with `compass_pages_get` first, and get page ids from `compass_pages_list`. It also names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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