set_side_page_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the side effect of published:true (sets published pointer to latest draft), the non-destructive behavior of published:false (keeps last-published marker), and the exact response field (publishedVersionId), giving the agent a clear mental model of the operation.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, then proceeds logically through publish and unpublish semantics, ending with the response field. Every sentence adds valuable operational detail without fluff, making it dense but clear.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves for both flag values, the versioning nuance, and the return value. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further investigation.

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 meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the nuanced behavior of the 'published' boolean parameter (true publishes draft, false hides but preserves restore capability) and the 'slug'/'sideKey' parameters are self-evident from their schema descriptions. This elevates it above baseline.

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 ('Publish or unpublish') plus the resource ('a side page') and explains the core behavior. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the publish/unpublish action rather than editing or viewing, and even references how it relates to edit_side_page / set_side_page_section.

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 explains when to use this tool: to make draft edits live via published:true, and to hide a page while retaining the ability to instantly restore it via published:false. It also states that the response includes publishedVersionId, eliminating the need for a follow-up view_side_page call, which is practical usage guidance.

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