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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('only include the fields you want to change'), which implies unspecified fields remain unchanged. This is useful beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention side effects like page reordering when position changes (schema covers that).

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and adds the most important usage nuance. No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 presence of an output schema, rich parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention that page_id is required or that this operates on report pages, but the title and schema already communicate those. It's adequate for a simple update tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds the key semantic that omitted fields are left unchanged, which significantly clarifies how the parameters work together, exceeding the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('page'), and the title clarifies it is a report page, aligning with sibling create_page/delete_page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update_* siblings like update_report, though the resource name makes it unambiguous enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like delete_page or create_page. The only usage instruction, 'only include the fields you want to change', addresses partial updates but not tool selection criteria.

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