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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that description supports real newlines and no length limit, and that zoning_html replaces the current wireframe. However, it does not state that update is a mutation (though implied), nor does it mention merge behavior for the SEO block, which is only in the schema. More behavioral detail (e.g., what happens to previous content) would be helpful.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose and then highlights key specialized fields. It is three sentences, no fluff, and each sentence adds value (newline handling, rich content, zoning_html, annotations). Minor deduction for not being ultra-structural, but it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is not fully complete. It explains the most nuanced parameters (description, zoning_html, annotations) but leaves out important details like merge semantics for SEO, how parent_id moves work, and what exactly 'New page type' means. It covers the essentials but gaps remain for an agent to call it correctly in all scenarios.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning primarily for the 'description' and 'zoning_html' parameters, emphasizing real newlines and wireframe replacement. However, the description does not elaborate on many other parameters like 'annotations', 'notes', 'rationale', or 'parent_id' beyond what the schema already describes. It adds some value, but not fully compensating for the 25% gap, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool updates a page's properties, a specific verb-resource pairing. It highlights key fields and content capabilities (description, zoning_html, annotations), which helps distinguish it from creation tools like create_node. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other update-related tools in the sibling list (there are none), so a small deduction.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_node or bulk_create_nodes. It is implied that updates are for existing nodes, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use for modifying existing pages, not creating new ones'. The rich content mention suggests use cases, but clear context for when not to use is missing.

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