update_ui_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides notable transparency: omitted fields stay unchanged, empty items list clears the page, item commands are validated, defaults to dry_run=True, and auto-backup before real write. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, but still offers substantial insight.

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 concise, using four sentences to convey the main action and key behaviors. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good context for the core functionality. The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, but the 'host' parameter remains unexplained, and the 'auto-backup' detail lacks elaboration.

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 explains the behavior of 'name', 'grid', 'items', and 'dry_run' parameters, but the 'host' parameter is not mentioned, and 'scope', 'scope_id', 'page_id' are only implied. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves some parameters unexplained.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'UI page', and specifies the scope ('on an activity or remote'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_ui_page, get_ui_page, and list_ui_pages by focusing on modification.

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 implies usage for modifying existing UI pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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