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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit by specifying the destructive mechanism ('replaces the list, order respected') and the auth prerequisite (read/write API key). It stops short of describing failure modes or whether omitted fields revert to defaults.

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 tight sentences with the mutation scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing API endpoint reference is mildly extraneous but harmless.

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?

With no output schema and six fully documented parameters, the description covers auth, partial-update semantics, and the destructive checks replacement, which is enough for correct invocation. Only the response shape and error behavior remain unstated, and those are secondary here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that the checks list is order-sensitive and fully replacing, and by confirming the partial-update contract for all fields. That is genuine added semantics over the field-level descriptions.

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 (Change) and resource (status page), then enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (checks, name, description, visibility, access key). This distinguishes it from updown_create_status_page and from updown_update_check, whose resource is a check rather than a page.

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 description clarifies patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the auth requirement, which is useful context, but it never names when to reach for this over create_status_page or which fields warrant which call. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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