update_page

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

The description adds some context by listing the metadata fields and aligns with the non-destructive annotation. However, it does not disclose whether this is a partial update or a full overwrite, what the effect of 'visibility' is in practice, or what response to expect. The destructiveHint=false annotation lowers the burden, but richer behavioral detail would still be valuable.

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 one focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the scope. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool operates on.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and the schema covers parameter semantics, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain return behavior, partial-update semantics, or how to choose this over more specific sibling tools. For an 8-parameter mutation tool with many related siblings, this leaves noticeable gaps.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description's field list roughly mirrors the schema properties but does not add meaning beyond the schema. 'Visibility' is a loose label for the 'hidden' parameter, and 'layout customization' matches 'customization'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb ('Update'), the resource ('page-level metadata'), and enumerates the affected fields: title, intro copy, nav title, visibility, and layout customization. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from specialized siblings like set_page_hidden, which overlaps with the 'visibility' aspect.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_page_hidden, reorder_pages, or update_home_section. The description implies a general-purpose updater but never states exclusions or points to a more specific sibling for narrower tasks.

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