update_doc_page

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes much further: it states the edit happens in place on the existing doc_id/page_id (URL keeps working), that content is always fully replaced, and explains the retry safety rationale for not exposing append/prepend modes. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations with no contradiction.

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?

Each paragraph serves a distinct purpose: objective, usage rationale, behavioral caveat, and parameter definitions. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place despite the length. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, destructive operation, tricky retry semantics), the description covers behavior, alternatives, parameter meanings, and return value mention. Output schema exists, so not explaining return structure is acceptable. Nothing important is missing.

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%, so the description carries full burden. The Args section adds meaning to every parameter: doc_id and page_id are 'as returned by create_doc,' content 'replaces the page in full,' name explains unset keeps existing title, and content_format lists allowed values with default. This fully compensates for the empty 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Overwrite an existing Doc page's content in place, and return its URL.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_doc by explaining the no-delete-endpoint problem, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use: 'Use this to correct a previously published Doc ... instead of calling create_doc again.' It also explains why not to use create_doc (orphans the first Doc) and why append/prepend modes are intentionally not exposed (retry safety).

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