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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it never publishes a draft or sends messages, edits preserve URL and publication state, only supplied fields change, and request_id must be reused on retry to stay idempotent. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded and fact-dense in the first paragraph, but the 'When to use' paragraph largely restates the opening ('Create a private draft or patch one of your pages', retry idempotency, editing needs the current version), and the example adds little information. A meaningful fraction of the text does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with 100%-covered parameter descriptions and explicit annotation-supported behavior, the definition gives an agent everything required to create a draft, retry safely, and patch an existing page correctly.

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 genuine semantics: defaults (30 minutes, 14 days, empty description), that an empty description string clears the field, and that expected_updated_at is the optimistic-concurrency token tying edits to a known version. It does not cover the duration_min enum constraint, which the schema handles.

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+resource ('Create a private booking-page draft or edit one of your pages') and explicitly separates creation from editing, plus names the sibling that handles publishing (set_booking_page_status). An agent can distinguish it from other scheduling tools 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Create a private draft or patch one of your pages'), the retry condition (reuse the exact request_id UUID), the edit precondition (expected_updated_at / current version), and an explicit exclusion routing publishing to set_booking_page_status. Nothing is left to inference.

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