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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the fields passed change') and flags that the page is public, requiring user confirmation. Annotations already state idempotent and destructive hints, and the description does not contradict them.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by necessary caveats. Every phrase earns its place: the field list, the partial-update rule, and the public-confirmation warning.

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 12 parameters but a rich schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what can change, how partial updates behave, and the public nature requiring confirmation. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the mutation's purpose is sufficiently clear.

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%, leaving font, theme, and hide_from_search_engines undocumented by the schema. The description names some parameter categories like name, description, website, and subscription button, and adds the partial-update rule, but it does not compensate fully for the undocumented parameters. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('status page'), then enumerates the distinct settings it affects: name, description, website, look, or subscription button. This clearly separates it from related tools like update_status_page_incident or update_monitor by focusing on status page settings.

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 important usage context: only the fields passed are changed, so callers can do partial updates without specifying all fields. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user first because the page is public. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool's resource and scope are clear enough.

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