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

Annotations already communicate that this is a destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds the partial-update behavior via 'any editable field.' However, it does not mention side effects like status transitions, slug changes, or irreversibility beyond what the annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the action, target, and scope without repeating schema information.

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 complete input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only an explicit pointer to sibling alternatives, but 'static page' already provides enough disambiguation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including cross-references like 'Use upload_image for local files.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Update,' and a specific resource, 'existing static page,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page and update_post. The phrase 'any editable field' conveys that this is a partial-update tool, not a full replacement.

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?

The phrase 'existing static page' gives clear context that this tool is for modifying pages that already exist, not for creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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