update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics, that html/css/js are replaced wholesale rather than merged, and that a revision is recorded as a side effect (implying history/audit and potential recovery). It omits permission requirements and what happens to fields left unset beyond 'unchanged'.

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, tight and front-loaded with the core action, then the two behavioral facts that matter most (replacement vs partial, revision recorded). No 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers update semantics and side effects well. It could be slightly more complete by noting that id must reference an existing page or that the tool requires owner-level access, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 82%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning the schema lacks: which fields are wholesale-replaced (html, css, js) versus left untouched. That distinction directly affects how an agent should pass values and is not stated anywhere in the schema descriptions.

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 a page'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling create_page, delete_page and get_page operations. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast behavior with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the update semantics and the 'only the fields you pass are changed' note tells the agent this is a partial-update call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g. use get_page first to obtain current values, or update_component for component-level changes).

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