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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement, the fact that the URL stays the same, and that every update is retained as a revision. These are useful behavioral details that match the annotations, including the non-idempotent hint. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the important behavioral consequences (URL stability, revisions, auth) are stated efficiently.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the annotations cover safety semantics, and the input schema has 100% parameter documentation, the description provides the remaining context an agent needs: ownership, auth, URL behavior, and revision history. Nothing essential is missing for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents slug, title, and markdown. The description adds only implicit alignment with the markdown parameter ('Replace the Markdown') and does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the Markdown of a page you own.' It clearly identifies this as an update operation on an existing published document, and the title reinforces the distinction. This differentiates it from sibling tools like publish_doc and delete_doc.

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 gives clear context: it applies to pages you own, requires an lp_ API key, and updates the existing URL rather than creating a new document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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