Replace a page

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the HTML is stored exactly as sent, that the entire page content is replaced, and that no wrapping or appending occurs. This tells an agent exactly what side effect to expect.

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?

Three short sentences lead with the core operation, then state the boundary, then give alternatives. There is no redundant or generic filler.

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 three required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations that already define danger (destructive), the description provides the remaining operational context an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It even answers the likely 'what about large HTML?' question.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the useful nuance that html must be the full replacement content, stored verbatim rather than modified into a wrapper.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Replace the whole HTML content...') and the text-page resource. 'Nothing is appended or wrapped' explicitly separates it from content-writing siblings such as journal-append-page and journal-page-from-file.

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 gives concrete guidance on when this tool is appropriate and what to do instead for larger content: write the first chunk here and append the rest, or use journal-page-from-file. This is direct routing advice rather than a general hint.

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