sub_page_configs_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether the function returns the updated configuration or just a success indicator, or any idempotency or permission considerations. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 single, short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it duplicates the tool name without adding substantial value. While it is not verbose, it may be considered under-specified rather than optimally concise, but the structure itself is clean and does not waste words.

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 is an update operation with no output schema and only two parameters, the description does not explain expected behavior. It does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., non-existent uuid), or the return value. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Both parameters (name and uuid) have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The schema already clarifies that 'name' is the new name and 'uuid' is the config UUID. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thorough documentation.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'subscription page configuration', clearly identifying the operation. It is unambiguous in its core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like sub_page_configs_clone, which also modifies a configuration but creates a copy. The basic action is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as sub_page_configs_create, sub_page_configs_delete, or sub_page_configs_clone. It lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing uuid) or scenarios where update is preferred. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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