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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitted fields are preserved (partial update) and that an API key is required with guest pages excluded. However, it does not say whether edits are reversible, how content/format interact, or what happens to expiry when unset, leaving meaningful mutation risk undocumented.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the partial-update rule, then the auth constraint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials: what can be changed, partial-update behavior, and the auth requirement. Gaps remain around the format parameter and expiry semantics, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It names five updatable fields (title, content, theme, byline, expiry) that map to the properties, adding context the schema lacks. It still omits the 'format' parameter and doesn't clarify that 'expiry' means expires_in_hours, but coverage is substantially improved.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('page you own') plus the mutable fields (title, content, theme, byline, expiry), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like publish_page or delete_page, but the 'replace fields of an existing page' framing is unambiguous.

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 useful prerequisites — partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are kept') and the API key requirement with the guest-page exclusion — but gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., when to update vs republish via publish_page). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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