Update a published page

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the shareable URL is preserved and that the page body is wholesale replaced, but it omits authorization requirements, conflict/versioning behavior, and what happens to the prior HTML.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the replacement semantics and URL-preservation behavior come first. It is tight, though arguably under-sized for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it does not cover permissions, whether the HTML must be a full document, size limits, or the result of the call. It leaves more open than it answers.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only indirectly gestures at `html` ('new static HTML') and `pageId` ('a page'), and never mentions the optional `title` parameter or format constraints on the HTML.

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 verb (replace/update) and resource (a page) plus the payload type (static HTML), so an agent can tell it apart from publish_page, unpublish_page, and delete_page. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like publish_page, which would have pushed it to a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus publish_page, publish_html, or unpublish_page, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the target page must already be published). The title hints at 'published page' but the description itself provides no selection criteria.

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