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

With only destructiveHint=true declared, the description adds real value: it warns that 'checks' replaces the list (with order preserved), clarifies that omitted fields are untouched, and states the read/write API key requirement. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover failure modes like invalid check tokens.

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: purpose and field list first, then the critical replacement/partial-update semantics and auth requirement, then the API mapping. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, mutation semantics, and auth. It leaves unspecified what the response contains and how errors (e.g. bad check tokens) surface, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema doesn't: the partial-update contract ('only the fields you pass are changed') and order significance for the checks list. The remaining parameters are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change a status page') and enumerates the exact mutable fields (checks, name, description, visibility, access key). This clearly separates it from siblings like updown_create_status_page and updown_list_status_pages without needing to name them.

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 gives clear context: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' defines partial-update behavior and 'Requires the read/write API key' states a prerequisite. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool, so it falls just below the top band.

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