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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and gives examples, but does not disclose potential side effects such as whether existing property values are overwritten (e.g., do tags get replaced or appended?), permissions required, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise, with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted list of examples covering each parameter. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all parameters with examples, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks important context such as the behavior of unspecified parameters (are they left unchanged?), whether tags are replaced or appended, and any error conditions. This leaves gaps for an agent to call it correctly in all cases.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving usage examples that show how parameters combine and the purpose of repo_url vs root_path (cross-machine support vs local path), which goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Update a page's properties' and provides specific examples of the properties it can update (repo_url, root_path, title, parent_id, folder_id, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_block and update_page_summary, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states a specific use case ('Use this to link pages to codebases') and provides examples of different update scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like update_block or update_page_summary, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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