update_status_page

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context with 'monitorIds replaces the list', clarifying replacement rather than append semantics. It still omits whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, and the result of the mutation.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and packs the updatable fields efficiently with no filler. Only slightly dense at the tail with the parenthetical clarification.

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 9-parameter mutation with 56% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only about half the parameters and gives no guidance on partial-update semantics or auth. An agent would need to infer a lot from the schema alone.

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 56%, and the description adds real value for monitorIds (replaces the list) beyond the bare array schema. However it says nothing about externalUrl, hideBranding, project or workspace, so roughly half the parameters rely entirely on the 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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('status page') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, theme, latency display, monitors), so an agent can distinguish this from create_status_page and list_status_pages. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_status_page, update_monitor), nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the implied mutation semantics of the field list.

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