Update Page

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (may have side effects beyond visible returns). The description adds minimal behavioral context - it doesn't mention whether this is reversible, whether dryRun affects behavior, what the return/payload looks like, or the semantics of visibility object values. With openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description carries a heavier burden to explain side effects, which it fails to do.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it telegraphs a lack of informative content. While there's no redundant bulk, the extreme brevity means the single sentence must carry substantial weight - particularly for ambiguous parameters like dryRun and the free-form visibility object - which it does not.

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?

This is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with openWorldHint=true, 6 parameters including a free-form nested visibility object, and no output schema. The description is far too minimal for this complexity. It doesn't explain dryRun, the visibility object structure, required references (portalRef, pageRef), or any return-value expectations. Compared to the HIGH calibration example, this tool needs substantially more description than it has.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. The description names three of them (title, sortOrder, visibility) but omits portalRef, pageRef, and dryRun from meaningful explanation. Notably, dryRun is a non-obvious parameter whose behavior (preview vs actual update?) is entirely unexplained. The visibility nested object with free-form propertyNames is completely undefined in both schema and description.

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 resource (a page), and lists the specific updatable fields (title / sortOrder / visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page, delete_page, and save_page_layout. It could be slightly more explicit about being a metadata-only update (not layout/blocks), but the field list gives good clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this vs. alternatives like update_portal or save_page_layout. The description implies it's for page metadata updates, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the dryRun parameter's role in validation.

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