update_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. Saying 'Update an existing page' merely restates the tool name and gives no information about partial update behavior, return values, error handling, permissions, or side effects. It adds zero context beyond the name.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb, but it is perhaps too sparse to be fully helpful; still, it earns its place as a concise summary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens on update, return values, and usage constraints. It only says 'Update an existing page,' leaving the agent to infer from schema. The schema helps but does not compensate for missing behavioral/return context.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (id, body, title, handle, published). The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already provides full meaning.

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 action (update) and resource (existing page), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_page, get_page, and delete_page. The word 'existing' reinforces that this tool modifies rather than creates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to use create_page for new pages, or provide context on idempotency or prerequisites. The only hint is 'existing', which is implicit.

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