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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint): cost ('Free: spends no credits'), side effects ('visible immediately on a live site'), preview-vs-commit behavior, and a recovery path via soclo_page_pages and soclo_page_versions. None of this is derivable from the annotation block.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then preview flow, cost, live visibility, and recovery. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the commit gate, cost, real-world side effect, and failure recovery. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 description compensates by mapping the three undocumented params (title, navigation label, slug) to their meaning and clarifying confirm's preview semantics and if_unchanged's sourcing. It doesn't add format constraints, so not a 5.

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 (change/rename) plus the exact resources (title, navigation label, slug) and scope ('one selected page'). The field-level scope makes it distinct from sibling write tools like soclo_page_save, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance for the two-phase flow ('Without confirm:true it returns a preview only; pass confirm:true only after the owner approves') and a prerequisite ('need the displayed if_unchanged revision from soclo_page_pages'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for divergent intent, so 4 rather than 5.

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