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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that unknown keys cause refusal and no write occurs, lists exactly which keys are allowed, and explains null/empty-list behavior for FAQs. This is substantial behavioral context, though it does not cover permissions, partial-update behavior, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then lists allowed keys and null constraints without filler. It is appropriately sized for a mutation tool with a nested updates object.

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 destructive, idempotent update tool with a nested updates parameter and no output schema, the description covers the critical validation rules and field-level behavior. It could be more complete by clarifying how page_id and page_uuid interact and whether updates may be empty.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that page_id or page_uuid identifies the page and by enumerating the allowed keys inside updates. It still leaves gaps around type expectations for most keys and whether page_id and page_uuid are mutually exclusive or prioritized.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it updates allowed keys of a seliee_page identified by page_id or page_uuid. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from same-resource siblings such as edit_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 states important constraints: only listed keys are accepted, other keys are refused, and certain fields reject null. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like edit_page or update_*_keys for other resources, so usage is mostly implied.

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