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

Beyond annotations, it discloses two important behaviors: the response includes saved_fields read back from the DB to expose silent drops/modifications, and the Royally approval workflow means nothing changes until a person approves. These details materially help an agent predict results and 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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with the most decision-relevant behavioral details. The parenthetical site note is slightly redundant with site_id, but overall the description is efficient.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral context: approval gating and saved_fields verification. It is not exhaustive on parameter semantics, but it is substantially complete for safe 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 coverage is 64%, so the schema documents many but not all parameters. The description adds meaning for the date parameter by explaining reschedule/backdate usage, but it does not compensate for undocumented fields like id, title, status, and content.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Update existing page." This clearly distinguishes it from page-creation/deletion tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling post update tool.

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?

It implies usage by saying "Update existing page" and gives a concrete date-related use case for rescheduling or backdating. However, it does not say when to use this instead of wp_update_post or other page-editing tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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