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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: PUT replace semantics, OUT_OF_SYNC rejection, atomic failure ('nothing is written'), and the impossibility of writing from memory. This substantially exceeds the annotation hints and adds real concurrency context.

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 and front-loaded: it opens with the core operation, then layers PUT semantics, append pattern, permission, and concurrency requirements. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 is unusually complete for an update tool: it covers prerequisites, concurrency failure, and the read-append-send pattern. The only gap is that the schema is empty and the description does not enumerate which page fields can be supplied, though openWorldHint and the output schema mitigate this somewhat.

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?

With zero parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaningful semantics. It names the conceptual baseUpdatedAt parameter, explains how to obtain it, and defines the failure mode for stale values, giving the agent actionable guidance the schema alone lacks.

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 states a specific operation: 'Update a page by id' with PUT semantics, clearly distinguishing it from read, create, and delete siblings. It is not a tautology; it explains what the update does and how it behaves.

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 provides strong usage context: caller must have 'contribute' permission, and baseUpdatedAt must come from a fresh play_get_page read. It also gives an explicit append workflow, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete.

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