update_page_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key non-destructive semantics: only passed languages/fields change and omitted ones keep their current values, plus the user-confirmation gate. However, it does not mention whether changes apply to draft or published state, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like for a mutation with no required parameters.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the next two add only safety-critical semantics: partial updates and user confirmation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 core partial-update behavior is well covered, but important context is missing: there is no output schema, no mention of draft-vs-published behavior, no guidance on what happens if only pageId is passed, and no explicit sibling differentiation. For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, these gaps leave the agent to infer or risk misuse.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds only a high-level field list and the merge/partial-update rule, without adding deeper meaning for complex parameters like parentId or customFields. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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') and resource ('page metadata'), and enumerates the covered fields: name, slug, display name, SEO fields, and custom fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_page_blocks or update_page_layout, whose focus is structural rather than metadata.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage precondition: 'Only call after the user confirms.' This is actionable for an agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with tools like create_page or update_page_blocks, but the metadata scope makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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