Replace a document's content

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that the previous version is unrecoverable and that a Pro plan is required, plus clarifies that existing viewers see the new version. This goes beyond the annotations and provides important usage caveats, though it could mention other potential side effects (e.g., caching).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place: preservation of metadata, immediate visibility for existing link holders, the revival scenario, irrecoverability, and the plan requirement. There is no wasted wording.

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 destructive nature and multiple parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes, prerequisites, and a distinguishing use case. With the presence of an output schema and detailed annotation coverage, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, file, path, keepAnchors) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action (swap/repalce PDF content) and the resource (existing EveryPage link), while emphasizing what remains unchanged (link, QR code, settings, readership history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like everypage_delete_file or everypage_update_file_settings, which operate on existence or settings rather than the underlying content.

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 concrete scenario ('revive a link that was burned by its view limit') and clearly implies this is the way to change content while preserving metadata. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes the intended use obvious compared to settings updates or deletion.

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