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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds rich behavior: slug normalization rules, error codes (slug_taken, reserved_slug, no_page, page_exists, monitor_not_found), monitorIds visibility semantics, and the side effect that the old address stops working. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the main edit operation and then packs necessary detail about creation, errors, and side effects. It is dense but contains little obvious waste; a more scannable structure (e.g., bullets for error codes) could improve it slightly.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation prerequisites, validation rules, error responses, side effects, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly across both update and create paths.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conditional requiredness (name, slug, and monitorIds only required on creation) and slug normalization/character rules that are not fully captured in the schema. monitorIds semantics are partly in the schema, but the description reinforces how ids map to public monitors.

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 ('Altera') and resource ('status page pública da conta'), lists the exact editable fields, and explicitly routes section/monitor-list editing to estruturar_pagina. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like estruturar_pagina and ver_conta without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly describes when it creates versus updates (statusPage null in ver_conta), the required fields on creation, and the alternative tool for sections and monitor list (estruturar_pagina). It also names error conditions and when they occur, leaving little to inference.

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