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

Goes well past the annotations: no draft, ticket, team approval, CI step or redeploy, and the targeted change is published and broadcast to already-open browsers. However, expectedVersion is required yet the description never says what happens when it is stale (conflict rejection) and never mentions undo or rollback, which are the key risk facts for a destructive live mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its immediacy, then workflow guarantees, then the cross-reference to get_page, then routing versus update_page. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the annotations.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, it covers routing, publish semantics and prerequisite retrieval well. The residual gaps — version-conflict behavior, reversibility, and what the call returns — are the ones an agent would most want before firing an irreversible live edit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add that IDs and expectedVersion come from get_page, and its list of modifiable surfaces loosely hints at the operation types, but the nine-value `op` enum, the index/blockId/sectionId/value fields and the maxItems=100 limit are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource — immediately modifying the *published* page while a client is viewing it — and enumerates the mutation scope (text, image, block, section, navigation). It is clearly separable from update_page and publish_page 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?

Explicitly declares itself the default for a live correction request and names the alternative with its selecting condition: update_page publish=false only if a draft is explicitly requested. It also states the prerequisites (read get_page for IDs and expectedVersion) and the negative case (diverging draft receives the operations but its other changes are not published).

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