update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that page content/blocks are never touched and only properties are updated, but it does not cover merge/overwrite semantics, permissions, failure modes, or return values.

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 moderately long but well-structured with sections for parameters, examples, and value types. Each section adds practical guidance, though the parameter section partly restates the schema.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description provides enough guidance to invoke it correctly: page identifier format, properties object shape, and value encodings. It omits response/error details, but those are not essential for this simple tool.

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 already describes both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples and a supported value-type list (date ranges, multi-select, checkboxes, URLs) that clarify how to encode property values, going beyond the schema.

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 it updates page properties without rewriting content, and explicitly contrasts itself with the write tool for property-only changes. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools.

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 names the write tool as the alternative for content changes and frames itself as the simpler option for property-only updates. It does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions or cover other siblings, but the intended use case is clear.

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