update_page

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

Annotations supply idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral: no partial-vs-full update semantics, no note that omitted fields are untouched, no permission requirements. For a destructive mutation this leaves a real gap.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list as a parenthetical. Efficient, though the trailing fragment lacks terminal punctuation and mixes field names that don't exactly match the schema keys.

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 single-object mutation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it never states that page_id is required, whether the update is partial, or what happens to unspecified fields — details an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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% with 8 well-documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely echoes five of them (title, intro copy, nav title, visibility, layout customization) but omits menu_title, description and the required page_id, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Update page-level metadata') with an enumerated field list that tells an agent what the tool mutates. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_page_hidden, which overlaps with the 'visibility' field it claims to cover.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_page_hidden or reorder_pages, which are obvious overlaps for a page-mutation tool. The agent must infer selection from the sibling list alone.

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