call_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it flags possible side effects, the need to respect user authorization, and the danger of automatic retries on unknown outcomes, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits error semantics, idempotency, and what happens on revision mismatch or failure.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and constraint, then add the cautionary clause. Dense and waste-free, though 'Respect the user authorization and side effects' is slightly vague.

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 tool that dynamically dispatches to other tools with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it lacks explanation of what a page tool is, how to obtain the revision, or how to shape the input object.

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 0% for 4 required parameters, including a nested free-form 'input' object. Only 'revision' gains meaning from the description ('its exact revision'); pageId, name, and the shape of input are left entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Call) and resource (a previously described page tool) with a key constraint (its exact revision). An agent can distinguish it as the invocation step that follows describe_tool, though the term 'page tool' is not defined here and relies on sibling context.

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 precondition 'previously described' implies a mandatory describe_tool/describe step before calling, and 'never retry unknown outcomes automatically' gives actionable retry guidance. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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