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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the preview-without-confirm gate, that saved changes appear immediately on a live site, that the call is free, and that a lost write reply must be reconciled via soclo_page_get / soclo_page_pages / soclo_page_versions before retry. The annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so this is additive rather than contradictory.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the confirm gate, followed by operational caveats (live visibility, publish separation, reconciliation). 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive-safety flow, the visibility consequence, and the failure/recovery path. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, including a description for confirm that overlaps the prose, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces confirm's gating role but adds no field-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Write the allowlisted page content fields in page.' It immediately distinguishes saving content from publishing by naming soclo_page_publish as a separate operation, so an agent can route without opening overlapping page siblings.

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 explicit when/when-not: omit confirm:true to get a preview that sends nothing, and pass confirm:true only after the owner approves the exact change. It also names the alternative path (publication via soclo_page_publish) and prescribes reconciliation tools before retrying a lost write.

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