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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive consequences the annotations cannot convey: a new slug changes the URL, the old link shows 'revoked' and can never be reused, and minted pages remain permanent so expires_in_hours is silently ignored. It also discloses auth requirements and that untouched fields survive, which is exactly the partial-mutation behavior an agent must know before writing.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (what changes, partial-update rule, slug side effect, permanence + auth restriction). Front-loaded with the action and field list; 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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision inputs: auth, partial update, irreversible link revocation, and expiry behavior. It stops short of saying what the response contains or how the undocumented `format` parameter interacts with `content`, which leaves a small gap for an 8-parameter 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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names six of the eight fields and adds non-obvious semantics for slug (URL change with permanent revocation) and expires_in_hours (ignored on minted pages). The `format` parameter is never mentioned anywhere, and theme/byline/content still lack value semantics beyond their names.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb ("Replace") plus the exact resource and the full field list (title, content, theme, byline, slug, expiry) and an ownership constraint ("a page you own"). It implicitly separates itself from publish/mint/delete by framing this as in-place replacement on an existing owned page, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: requires an API key and guest pages can't be edited, so the agent knows when this call is legal. It also states partial-update semantics ("Omitted fields are kept") and carves out minted pages (expiry ignored), which governs when expires_in_hours is meaningful. There is no explicit "use X instead" routing to publish_page or mint_page for creation cases.

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