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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: custom_domain null removes the setting, internal visibility requires a password typed by the user, and passwords must never be invented or repeated. It does not detail broader authorization requirements or consequences for unspecified fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action is stated first, then fields and key constraints. Every sentence carries a constraint or semantic detail, with 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is fairly complete: it covers the main field semantics, the custom_domain removal behavior, and password safety rules. The main remaining gaps are the missing explanation of the required slug argument and the absence of allowed visibility values.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It helps for several fields, especially show_auto_detected, custom_domain null, and the password requirement for internal visibility, but it omits the required slug parameter and does not enumerate allowed visibility values or clarify null behavior for other fields.

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 and resource: 'Update a status page,' then enumerates the updatable fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as create_status_page, get_status_page, or delete_status_page.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' and by conditional rules such as visibility internal requiring a user-entered password and custom_domain null removing the domain. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as get_status_page or create_status_page.

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