update_resource

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope boundary (this tool does not touch content, facts, or tree position), but for a 16-parameter partial-update mutation it never states whether omitted fields are left unchanged, what happens on conflicting tag params, or the admin requirement for visibility.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the capability is front-loaded and the routing alternatives follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 16-param mutation with 1 required param, no output schema and only 63% schema coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps: partial-update semantics and the interaction between tags/tags+add_tags/remove_tags are unaddressed. Annotations do carry the safety profile, so the omission is not fatal.

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 63%, above the baseline threshold, and the schema already documents replace semantics for tags/aliases and the add/remove variants. The description's value is mostly vocabulary mapping (icon -> glyph/color/shape, visibility -> is_hidden, lock -> is_locked), with no added meaning for the replace-vs-add/remove distinction or the unmentioned project parameter.

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) plus the exact resource and enumerates the mutable attribute set (name, tags, aliases, icon, visibility, lock, banner). It also names three siblings it is not (write_page, set_facts, move_resource), so an agent can separate it from the adjacent update tools without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit routing map: content edits go to write_page, facts to set_facts, tree position to move_resource, everything else to this tool. That is exactly the when-to-use-something-else guidance the dimension asks for, delivered compactly.

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