update_collective_page

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (idempotent/non-read-only/non-destructive) by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only what you pass changes'), full-replace semantics for text, preserved version history, and concurrent-edit conflict behavior. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the key partial-update rule and the read-first instruction before the Args block, and every sentence earns its place. The Args/Returns layout is scannable, though slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 5-param mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers all params, replace/partial-update behavior, version history, conflict handling and the companion read tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden and mostly does: it documents all five args and adds real semantics (empty string removes emoji, landing page cannot be renamed, content replaces the whole page). Minor gap: it never explains the nullable defaults the schema allows, so the null-vs-omitted behavior is inferred.

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 and resource ('Change a page's text, title or emoji') with the exact mutable fields, which clearly separates it from create_collective_page, move_collective_page and trash_collective_page. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to read first with get_collective_page and the condition that selects it ('to edit part of it'), which is exactly the routing guidance needed. It also pre-empts the concurrent-editing scenario where a version conflict may be surfaced.

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