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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changing the slug breaks shared URLs and that the response warns about it, which is valuable. However, it does not explain partial vs. full updates, permissions, or other side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and editable fields, and adds a crucial warning in a concise manner. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, whether the update is partial or full, or how the remaining parameters behave, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning for some parameters (blocks as content, slug, form_id as connected form, is_active as activation) but leaves ai_prompt, html_code, name, and landing_id unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial coverage is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool edits a landing page and lists the editable aspects (content, slug, connected form, activation). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_landing and list_landings.

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 purpose implies use for editing existing landings but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus create_landing or list_landings. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so guidance is only implied.

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