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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety metadata is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: changes are immediately visible on the page and do not trigger subscriber notifications. It does not state auth/permission needs, but adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and editable fields, then the behavioral caveat, then the alternative. No 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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (no subscriber notification) and routing. Minor gaps remain around permissions/reversibility, keeping it short of 5.

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 the schema already documents format, enums and defaults for all 8 params. The description only paraphrases the field set (title, type, status pages, services) and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change') plus the resource and enumerates the editable fields (title, type, status pages, affected services). It does not explicitly name which sibling it differs from (e.g. edit_status_page_incident_update), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Provides clear context ('pages show the change right away; subscribers are not notified') and implicitly routes to the alternative tool for notification ('To tell them something, post an update'). No explicit when-not condition, but the alternative is identifiable.

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