academy_update_page_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior (changes stay as concept until published), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not mention whether the update overwrites the entire body, permissions required, reversibility, or what happens to unpublished vs published pages. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is warranted.

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 a compact, efficient two-sentence Dutch text with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second provides workflow and parameter guidance. Slightly more could be added about behavior, but there is zero waste here.

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?

With only 2 simple string parameters and no output schema, the completeness burden is moderate. The description covers the core semantics (update existing page text, stays concept until publish) and parameter sourcing, which is adequate for a low-complexity tool. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it could disclose a bit more about side effects (e.g., whether bodyHtml replaces or merges content) for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully explains that id comes 'uit create of list' and bodyHtml is the text to set, but it adds no format details, encoding requirements, or length constraints beyond indicating bodyHtml is the text. There are only 2 params, both simple strings, so limited elaboration is needed; the description adds modest value.

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 Dutch description clearly states the action: 'Werk de tekst van een bestaande pagina bij' (update the text of an existing page). It specifies the resource (existing page) and verb (update text). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like academy_create_concept_page, but the focus on updating existing content is reasonably clear.

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 gives helpful context: changes remain a concept until you publish, and instructs users to provide id (from create or list) and bodyHtml. This implicitly guides when to use the tool (update an existing concept page's text) and hints at workflow context via 'blijft concept tot je publiceert,' but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools.

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