update_web_resource_and_publish

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the tool defaults to If-Match:* to prevent accidental upsert, dry_run performs a read-only preview of the latest saved/unpublished definition, and publish defaults to true. This meaningfully complements destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false by explaining the mutation's guardrail, though it doesn't say what happens to fields omitted from the request.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by concurrency, preview, and scope-limit notes. No filler, though the dry_run sentence reads slightly clipped compared to the rest.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and risky annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: concurrency, preview mode, publish default, and scope limits. It omits what the response contains and how a conflict surfaces beyond the 412 note in the schema, but that is a minor gap.

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 86%, so the schema already documents aliases, content vs file_path exclusivity, encoding and ETag conflict handling. The description reinforces if_match and dry_run but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields — baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing Web Resource by GUID and optionally publish it") plus an explicit scope boundary ("Does not rename or change the resource type"). It implicitly separates itself from create_web_resource_and_publish and publish_web_resource via "existing," but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Gives implied guidance: pass if_match for optimistic concurrency, use dry_run to preview, publish defaults to true. But it never states when to choose publish_web_resource (publish-only) or create_web_resource_and_publish (new resource) instead, which is the main ambiguity for an agent given three near-identical siblings.

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