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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: changes are applied one section at a time with the editor's own validation, the call returns the section as saved, and setting a custom domain returns the DNS record to create. These are exactly the operational facts annotations don't convey. It doesn't mention permission requirements or what happens to unspecified fields, which keeps it from a 5. Nothing conflicts with destructiveHint=true (the '' removal semantics for custom_domain, logo, favicon are consistent with a destructive-tagged mutation).

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-loads the trigger condition and the enumeration of editable areas, then closes with the sibling exclusion. It is a dense paragraph rather than bullets, which is slightly harder to scan, but no sentence 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?

For a 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, scope, atomicity per section, return behavior, and the DNS side effect. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: the slug is immutable, and only one section can be changed per call, clarifying how `section` and `fields` interact. The cross-field aliasing of description/meta_description is covered by the schema rather than the description.

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 ('change an existing status page's...') and enumerates exactly what is editable (name, description, custom domain, colours, logo, display settings, SEO fields). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling component tools, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to change...' gives a positive trigger, and 'Not for the services it shows: use add_status_page_component or update_status_page_component' gives the exclusion plus the named alternative. Both sides of the decision are explicit.

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