update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the edit is direct and not AI-regenerated, and that at least one field must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state that omitted fields are preserved, nor does it mention error behavior, permissions, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the action, adds a clarifying behavioral note, and provides the critical usage constraint without redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward update tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what can be updated, the direct-edit mode, and the parameter requirement. With no annotations or output schema, it could further enhance completeness by explicitly stating that unspecified fields remain unchanged and indicating what happens for invalid page_id, but the current level is adequate.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with meaningful descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter semantics by explicitly stating the 'at least one of title, content, or short_description' constraint, which is not enforced by the schema (only page_id is required). This extra guidance justifies a higher score.

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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'a page's title, content, and/or short description', clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from other tools by clarifying this is a direct edit without AI regeneration, which is useful given the sibling set includes read/search tools but no other update tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for direct edits without AI regeneration, and it states the requirement to provide at least one of title, content, or short_description. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool, which prevents a 5.

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