update_page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'update' is consistent and non-contradictory. However, the description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether partial updates are supported, permission requirements, or side effects). Since annotations already cover the main concern, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has 8 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value or behavior for partial updates. However, the schema covers parameter shapes, and the description lists the categories of metadata. For a tool with this complexity, some additional context (e.g., response format) would improve completeness, but it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions some fields ('visibility' mapping to 'hidden', 'layout customization' mapping to 'customization') but adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'page', and lists the metadata fields affected (title, intro copy, nav title, visibility, layout customization). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_page_hidden (which focuses on hiding) and reorder_pages.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_page_hidden for toggling visibility alone, or other update tools). The description does not exclude scenarios or mention prerequisites beyond what the schema implies.

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