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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so the description's job is to add nuance. It does: it states the correction is shown on the page, subscribers are not re-notified, and the original date is preserved. This discloses side effects beyond the annotation flags, which is exactly what behavioral transparency needs.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and gives a concrete example (typo); the second covers key behavioral consequences. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case and the main side effects. It doesn't mention edge cases like editing after resolution or restrictions on language, but those are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly. The required parameters (uuid, update_uuid) are obvious from the schema, and the status semantics are already in the schema. Overall, it's sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces that the tool edits 'text or stage', which maps to message and status, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Since the baseline for high coverage is 3, this stays at 3.

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 a specific verb ('Correct') and a specific resource ('an update already posted'), with a concrete example ('e.g. a typo'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_status_page_incident_update by emphasizing 'already posted', and from resolve_status_page_incident by focusing on updates rather than incident resolution. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 gives clear context: it's for correcting an existing update, not for creating a new one. The phrase 'already posted' and the typo example implicitly route agents away from add_status_page_incident_update. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar. It's still clear enough for most cases.

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