blogger_pages_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (partial update, only provided fields) but does not mention side effects such as how publish/revert booleans interact with the update, whether existing unprovided fields are preserved (though implied), or permissions/auth requirements. The disclosure is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, directly states the purpose and key behavior, and contains no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core partial-update concept but does not address edge cases like setting both publish and revert, or the required blogId/pageId (though those are in the schema). For a mutation tool, this leaves some contextual gaps regarding operational expectations.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only an example ('e.g., title or content') which does not go beyond schema semantics. It does not clarify the relationship between publish/revert and the update, so no additional meaning is provided beyond the structured fields.

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 clearly states the tool performs a partial update of an existing static page, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like blogger_pages_update (full update) and blogger_pages_insert. It also clarifies that only provided fields are updated, reinforcing the 'patch' semantics.

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 phrase 'partial update' and 'Only updates the provided fields' gives clear context for when to use this tool—specifically for targeted modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., blogger_pages_update for full replacement) or state exclusions, but the partial-update framing implies usage boundaries effectively.

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