Update Status Page

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

Without annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly states that config and publicGroupList are "replaced wholesale," which is a critical behavioral trait. It also notes that imgDataUrl should be omitted or empty to keep existing, revealing default behavior. These details go beyond basic expectations and help the agent avoid data loss.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides essential information: the action, the wholesale replacement behavior, the group structure, and the prerequisite read. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with four parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects. It explains the replace-wholesale semantics, the format of groups, and the safe workflow. The existence of an output schema means the response format is documented elsewhere, so the description does not need to explain it. Together with schema and output schema, the overall context is complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the parameter names. It explains the required structure of publicGroupList (each group has name, weight, monitorList of [{id}]) and clarifies the config fields (title, description, theme, published, etc.). It also provides a usage hint for imgDataUrl, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone.

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 opens with "Updates an existing status page," specifying the verb (updates) and resource (status page). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createStatusPage, getStatusPage, and deleteStatusPage, which perform different actions on the same resource type.

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 explicitly instructs to "Use getStatusPage first to read current state before modifying," providing actionable workflow guidance. It also explains the need to pass the full config and publicGroupList, implying that partial updates are not possible. This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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