Update Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies the operation as a rename and scopes out content changes, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. The output schema likely covers the response, but the description adds only minimal extra behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the explicit alternative routing follows immediately.

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 simple rename tool with only two parameters, one required, and an output schema, the definition is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it does not do, and routes to the relevant sibling. No critical information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (page_id as UUID/slugId and title as 'New title.'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline given complete schema coverage.

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 a specific action, 'Renames a page,' with a clear resource and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from update_page_content, which is the sibling likely to be confused with it.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (to rename) and when not to (to change content), naming the alternative update_page_content. This leaves little ambiguity for an agent selecting between the two.

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