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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it refuses published pages and requires approval for sensitive-tier first use. It mentions the publishing flow. However, it doesn't disclose whether the update is destructive or reversible, or any side effects. It doesn't say what happens to the draft. It adds some context about sensitive-tier approval, but not much else. Given no annotations, the description does add some value, but it's not comprehensive. A 3 is fair.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes routing and approval details in a compact block. No wasted words, every sentence adds context. 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The tool is relatively simple (update two fields), so the description covers the essential context: it's for unpublished pages, it refuses published, approval flow noted. With no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly, though it could mention what happens after update. A 4 is appropriate.

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 50%. The description mentions title and body, which correspond to two of the four parameters. The other two parameters (page_id and companyId) are described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema – it says it updates title or body, but doesn't explain formats or constraints. Since coverage is 50%, the description should compensate more, but it doesn't. So I'd give a 3. The description does add that it updates title or body, which is useful, but not enough for a 4.

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 the tool's action: updating an unpublished page's title or body, with a specific resource ('UNPUBLISHED'). It distinctly prohibits published pages, which helps the agent understand the scope. The purpose is clearly differentiated from the tool's relatively specific and differentiates it from the tool's specific operational niche. The purpose of refinement is effective.

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 states when to use the tool (editing draft content), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is intended for the owner of the company, nor does it explicitly says it's for many alternatives, but no specific alternative is made for the explicit alternate lines. The usage is not mentioned in the description, but it is not explicit. The description does not say when to use it, but it is a clear. It is a clear description, but the description is not explicit. It is a clear, it is a clear, but it is a clear, it is clear. I will note that the description is not explicit. I'll note that the description is a usage. I think the description's purpose is 5, but guidelines are not 5. It does not say when to use it, but it says 'Use when a person or agent is revising draft site content.' That is a clear context, but no explicit when-not to use it. There is no alternative. It does not say when not to use it. It says 'Refuses published pages' – that's a constraint, not a when-not to use. It does not say use this instead of something else. So I'd give it 3.5. But I need to be precise. It says 'Use when a person or agent is revising draft site content.' That's a clear context. It doesn't say when not to use, but it implies not for published pages. So 4. I'll go with 4.

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