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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific consequence the annotations cannot express -- that old links to the previous address stop working -- and instructs the agent to tell the user, which is actionable behavioral context; it stops short of covering permissions or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the exception and the consequence; nothing redundant and no repeated schema content.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers the essentials: what changes, what cannot change, and the user-visible risk. Return behavior is left implicit, and since no output schema exists, a line on what success looks like would close the last gap.

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 the schema does not: the page/slug interplay ('home page keeps its address') implies slug is meaningless when page=home, and it names the address format built from slug. That is genuine semantic value beyond the field 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Change a subpage's address ... and/or its title') and includes the concrete URL shape, so an agent can distinguish it from create_page, delete_page, and update_profile without opening the 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?

It gives a clear boundary condition ('The home page keeps its address; only its title can change') that tells the agent which inputs are valid in which case, but it does not name sibling alternatives or say when a caller should prefer another tool.

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