Update Page Content

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavior: deep-merge semantics, partial updates, image field path/URL input, and FAQ link syntax. This significantly helps the agent predict how the update will behave.

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 compact and front-loaded, using a clear instruction, a practical example, and two short format notes. Every sentence adds value without 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 (nested deep-merge, multiple field types), the description covers the essential usage details: pre-fetch, partial update, example, image URL/path, and FAQ links. It omits return value and error cases, but the nested-object complexity is well addressed, making it nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, yet the description adds substantial meaning: it illustrates the nested object shape with a concrete example, clarifies that only changed fields are sent, and provides format rules for image and FAQ fields. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Update a page's copy or images,' clearly stating the action (update) and resource (page content). It differentiates from siblings like get_page_content (read) and update_site_content (site-level vs page-level).

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 explicit usage guidance: call get_page_content first for the shape, then send only changed fields as a nested object. It does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools, but the prerequisite step is clear and actionable.

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