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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a non-obvious behavior: for already-published pages, the update saves only an unpublished latest revision. It also documents the required sequencing around publishing and the need to wait for explicit user confirmation. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, constraints, tool alternative, publishing workflow, and safety rule. The most important behavioral caveat about unpublished revisions is stated early, and prohibitions are explicit rather than buried.

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 nested mutation tool, the description covers the key workflow, user-communication rule, publishing constraints, and unpublish safety behavior. The output schema is present, so return-value explanation is not needed. No critical behavioral gap remains for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The description conveys that the theme object is a partial patch and lists the enum-constrained categories, which helps, but it does not explain pageId or editToken semantics. Since the schema description coverage is only 33%, the description only partially compensates for the gaps and leaves the agent to infer the roles of those parameters from the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a partial theme patch.' It also immediately signals the scoped nature of the operation, distinguishing it from a full restyle and from the related page_publish/page_unpublish siblings. The title reinforces the target resource clearly.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (presets_list) for complete restyles and gives direct guidance about when to call page_publish, when not to, and how to converse with the user. It also forbids calling page_unpublish unless the user explicitly asks to take the page down. This is actionable and unambiguous.

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