regenerate_landing_page

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the async behavior (returns operationId to poll with get_job) but does not mention potential overwriting of existing content or other side effects. It provides some behavioral context beyond schema, but not comprehensive.

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 with four concise clauses, front-loading the core action and then providing the key usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 an async AI regeneration tool, the description explains the operationId polling mechanism and the alternative for targeted edits. It omits details about what happens to existing content, but the schema covers required parameters, making this largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small bit by mentioning section restriction, but does not elaborate on instructions or voiceProfileId beyond what the schema already says.

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 tool's function—regenerating a landing page's content using AI—with specificity about optionally restricting to sections. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vibe_edit_landing_page, making its unique purpose obvious.

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?

It explicitly says 'For targeted edits to an existing page, prefer vibe_edit_landing_page,' giving clear when-not and alternative guidance. It also instructs to 'poll with get_job' after receiving an operationId, showing how to track progress.

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