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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: renaming changes the slug, SEO fields fall back to the site title rather than the page name, and headCode is server-rendered third-party code. It does not cover permissions or what an omitted field does to existing values.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the field inventory and follow-up with the two caveats and the guide pointer. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical field list is packed and could read more cleanly.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with a nested seo object and no output schema, the description covers the high-risk semantics (slug change, SEO fallback, chrome hiding intent) plus a companion guide. Gaps remain around partial-update merge behavior and whether empty strings vs omission differ, which matters for an idempotent write.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks — notably that name changes the slug (a hidden side effect) and the seo.title/description fallback semantics. These are real semantic additions rather than restatements.

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 (update) plus resource (page) and enumerates the exact updatable surface: name, SEO, home/404/hidden flags, headCode/bodyClass, hideHeader/hideFooter/hideChrome. An agent can distinguish it from add_page, delete_page, and update_site without opening any schema.

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?

It provides valuable routing context — the SEO fallback to site title via update_site, the note that headCode holds third-party code not page content, and a pointer to get_style_reference({topic:"pages"}). However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_site_node or the site-level setters, and gives no when-not guidance.

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