pages_update_static_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the update mechanism and scoping to secondary locales, but does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether permissions are required, or how fallback behavior works. Some behavioral context is added, but gaps remain.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. No redundant words 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?

The tool has a nested anyOf array, and while the description is brief, it provides the essential intent and scoping. The schema covers parameter details. The only notable gap is the lack of behavioral details on update semantics, but the combined description and schema provide sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 67% (page_id and localeId described, but not nodes at top level). The description compensates by mentioning 'text nodes and property overrides', which maps to the two anyOf types in the schema. However, it does not explain the relationship between nodes and locale or formatting constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('static page'), and scoping ('secondary locales') with the mechanism ('modifying text nodes and property overrides'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pages_update_page_settings and pages_get_content.

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 clear context: it is for updating static page content in secondary locales, implying it is not for primary locales or for page settings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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