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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by stating merge semantics for the mutation. It still omits the custom-domain restriction on username and the socials list-replacement behavior, but those live in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the change front-loaded and the partial-update rule immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. With 86% schema coverage and 0 required parameters, the description supplies enough for correct invocation; only the relationship to the other page-editing siblings is left unaddressed.

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 86%, so the schema already documents almost every parameter in detail (including the username/custom-domain constraint and socials replacement). The description only restates the field set in prose and never mentions uiLanguage or pageLanguage at all, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (change) plus an explicit enumeration of the editable resources: creator name, bio, page address, kind of page, and links. That field list implicitly separates it from siblings like update_page_appearance, update_page_behaviour, and update_seo, but no sibling is actually named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 sentence 'Only the fields you pass are changed; anything you leave out stays as it is' tells the agent how to invoke the tool correctly (pass only the deltas, no need to resend full state). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the neighbouring update_* tools that touch other parts of the page.

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