components_update_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that text nodes and property overrides are modified, but it does not say whether this is an overwrite/merge, whether it is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what happens to unspecified nodes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and target resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters. The description is too terse to be fully actionable; it omits side effects, return behavior, and usage context. While the schema covers parameter meanings, the overall description leaves significant gaps.

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 schema already describes most parameters (site_id, component_id, localeId) and the item structures, with 75% coverage. The description adds the 'secondary locales' context and the concept of text nodes vs property overrides, but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Update content'), the target resource ('component in secondary locales'), and the method ('by modifying text nodes and property overrides'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like components_update_properties and page content update functions.

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 description implies this is for updating localized component content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as components_update_properties or components_get_content. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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