Update Status Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of warning about behavioral traits. It explicitly notes that both the config and publicGroupList 'are replaced wholesale', highlighting the potentially destructive, non-merge nature of the update. It also specifies the group shape and the recommendation to read first, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action, the second explains the wholesale replacement behavior with shape details, and the third gives the recommended preceding call. No filler or repetition.

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 complex tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description fully explains the core workflow: get current state, pass full config, replace publicGroupList with properly shaped groups. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no further detail is needed. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, including the immutable slug, config fields, and imgDataUrl behavior. The description adds critical semantics not fully in the schema: must pass the 'full' config and publicGroupList because they are replaced wholesale. This clarifies the mental model for invocation.

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 clearly states 'Updates an existing status page', a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like createStatusPage, deleteStatusPage, and getStatusPage. The replacement semantics and mention of existing state eliminate ambiguity.

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 provides a clear usage directive: 'Use getStatusPage first to read current state before modifying.' This establishes a necessary prerequisite and contextual workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like createStatusPage for new pages, but for an update tool the prerequisite guidance is sufficient.

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