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

Annotations cover only safety hints (idempotent, non-destructive), while the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: props are shallow-merged rather than replaced, values are validated against a strict per-type schema, and for published pages the edit lands in an unpublished revision only. The publication workflow constraints are disclosed upfront and materially change agent behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and merge behavior, then the publish-safety instructions. The publish guidance is slightly repetitive across sentences ('Stop and tell the user…' / 'do NOT call page_unpublish'), but each clause carries operational weight and none is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs for a mutation tool: merge semantics, validation behavior, draft-vs-live consequences, and the publish hand-off protocol.

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% and every oneOf variant, enum, and field is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond it by explaining merge semantics of the props patch (only changed fields need to be supplied) and that the type may be intentionally changed — meaning not present in the schema text.

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 ('Patch one content block by stable blockId') and immediately clarifies the two mutation modes (props patch merged into existing props and/or a new type), which separates it from block_add and block_delete. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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-not guidance for downstream tools (do not call page_publish in the same turn; do not call page_unpublish) plus a required wait-for-user workflow. It does not, however, address when to choose this over sibling block tools (block_add, block_reorder) or the editToken requirement, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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