pages_update_page_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without explaining that this is a mutation, whether it overwrites existing settings, whether all fields are required or partial updates are allowed, or any permission/versioning considerations. The description adds no operational context beyond the bare action.

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 immediately states the action and key targets. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse and remember. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (nested body object, 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, error behavior, whether the operation is idempotent, or how it integrates with related tools like pages_get_metadata. The short description leaves many critical operational 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 description lists some fields (SEO, Open Graph, slug, publishing status) that map to properties in the body schema, adding modest semantic grouping. However, the schema itself already describes all parameters in detail, and the description does not clarify relationships like the duplication between top-level 'page_id' and body.id, or when the localeId parameter should be used. Its contribution is partial but not trivial.

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 a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('page settings') and enumerates concrete fields (SEO metadata, Open Graph data, slug, publishing status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pages_update_static_content' or read-only metadata tools, fulfilling the verb+resource+scope criterion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for settings changes rather than content edits, nor does it note any prerequisites like ensuring the page exists or whether the tool supports partial updates. The usage context is entirely unaddressed.

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