update_page

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: cover file:// paths are only supported in stdio transport and rejected in HTTP. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not cover other behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects. It explains the inputs and their constraints, though it omits mention of any return value or confirmation of success.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool's description adds significant value by clarifying the cover parameter's transport dependency and valid URL forms, which is not evident 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 clearly states the tool updates page title, icon, or cover. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('page'), and the list of modifiable fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_block' or 'update_database_entry'.

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 explicit guidance for the cover parameter regarding transport types (stdio vs HTTP) and the acceptance of file:// paths. However, it does not offer broader usage context or when to choose this tool over other update tools.

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