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

The description discloses the critical non-obvious behavior: for published pages, edits create an unpublished draft revision rather than mutating the live page. It also explicitly warns against calling page_publish or page_unpublish in the same turn, which is essential behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey. The idempotentHint annotation is consistent with the 'use only the fields you want to change' partial-update semantics, and the description adds the draft-vs-live distinction that makes the tool safe to invoke.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and field list, then moves into usage constraints. It is longer than ideal, but every sentence earns its place: the field enumeration, the partial-update note, the draft-revision behavior, and the publish/unpublish guardrails are all necessary. The structure could be improved with line breaks, but the content is well-ordered and free of fluff.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what fields change, how partial updates work, how published pages are affected, and what the agent must do after the call. The only minor omission is the meaning of editToken, but the schema and the tool's overall context make it inferable, and the description's guardrails are the most important completeness element.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning by grouping the parameters into a coherent mental model (displayName, bio, verified, QR, display style, role label, labelPosition, photo). It also clarifies the photoUrl null-removes behavior and the display enum values, which are already in the schema but reinforced. The description does not add detail for photoAlt, photoObjectPosition, or editToken, but the schema already documents those adequately, so the marginal gap is small.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update the link-in-bio page header') and enumerates the exact fields it affects, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_meta_update or page_theme_update. It also names the two display styles and the photo behavior, so an agent knows precisely what this tool owns.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use only the fields you want to change' and 'For already-published pages, this saves an unpublished latest revision only.' It also provides strong when-not-to-use guidance by instructing the agent not to call page_publish or page_unpublish in the same turn, and to wait for explicit user confirmation before publishing. This is exemplary routing and sequencing guidance.

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