Update Information

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes that find/replace applies to the HTML description field but does not disclose whether all occurrences are replaced, case sensitivity, failure behavior when 'find' is absent, permission requirements, or the destructive nature of the mutation.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the applicable field and the recommended prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits critical behavioral details such as replace-all versus first-match, error handling, and whether changes are reversible, even though the output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description needs to document all three required parameters. It implicitly maps find and replace through the phrase 'using find/replace', but adds no details about matching behavior, and it never clarifies what information_id refers to or expects.

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 states a specific verb (Update text), resource (information/CMS page), and method (find/replace), and specifies the exact field affected (HTML description). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like update_setting or update_product without opening the 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?

It provides one clear prerequisite: 'Use get_information_page first to see current content.' However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other update_* siblings or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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