dw_page_set_fields

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

The description explains the process: 'Fetches the current page, updates field values in its pageItem structure, then saves.' It also clarifies the fields parameter. However, it does not disclose whether fields are merged or overwritten, error handling (e.g., page not found), or side effects like triggering workflows. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is partially adequate.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and free of unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value: action statement, process summary, and parameter clarification.

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?

Given the complexity (fetch-update-save) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how to obtain pageId. However, for a simple field-setting operation, it provides the essential flow.

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 schema already describes the parameters. The description adds nuance for 'fields' by explaining it is a key-value map with field SystemNames as keys, which slightly exceeds the schema's description. For 'pageId', no additional meaning is added. Hence, baseline 3 with minor enhancement.

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 the action: 'Set item fields on a DynamicWeb page.' It specifies the resource (DynamicWeb page) and the operation (setting fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dw_page_get (read) and dw_field_save (field definitions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from dw_page_create (which might set fields on creation) or dw_page_update (which might update other properties).

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