edit_landing_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a key behavioral boundary: 'Does NOT touch page content.' This goes beyond the tool name and gives the agent essential safety information. However, it does not mention whether the update overwrites or merges with existing metadata, nor does it describe any authentication or return behavior. For a simple metadata update, the disclosed boundary is significant, but other behavioral details are absent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most important constraint ('METADATA ONLY') and immediately follows with the exclusion of content. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and alternatives thoroughly. It omits return value semantics and any note about whether the tool requires an existing landing page, but these are relatively minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the surrounding sibling context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (slug, title, instructions). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond repeating 'title and/or instructions.' Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('landing page') and explicit scope ('METADATA ONLY — title and/or instructions'). It directly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from content-editing siblings by emphasizing 'Does NOT touch page content.'

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 when-to-use guidance: use for metadata-only updates. It also names two alternatives for content changes (set_landing_page_section and vibe_edit_landing_page), making the tool's place among siblings clear.

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