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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to repeat those safety traits. It adds useful context that the edit is free and immediately visible on a live page, but it omits reversibility, permission requirements, and what exactly is overwritten.

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 description is short and front-loads the core action, with no wasted sentences. 'Free' and the live-page note are useful, though 'page words' is slightly vague.

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 nested-object edit tool with no output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It mentions cost and immediate visibility but does not explain which page sections can be changed or how partial edits are handled.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the id, hero, cta, or about parameters. 'Page words' hints at text fields but gives no mapping to the nested objects or partial-update behavior.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: changing the words on an ad page. It does not explicitly differentiate this edit tool from siblings like create, publish, preview, or reject, but the core action is still identifiable.

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 'the owner asked for' implies this is used when the owner requests copy changes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create, publish, preview, or other page tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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