update_page_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does so well by flagging the critical destructive exception: 'fields' replaces the whole schema, while other omitted fields keep their current value. It also cautions that confirmation is required. It stops short of mentioning downstream side effects on existing pages, but the schema's field description fills that in.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the resource and fields, the second conveys the critical update semantics and confirmation requirement. Everything is front-loaded and essential.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested schema definitions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete but relies on the schema for field-level details like 'read get_page_type first' and consequences for existing pages. It covers the most important context while leaving lower-level details to the schema.

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 high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics above the schema by stating the general update rule ('fields you omit keep their current value, EXCEPT fields'), which applies to all parameters and clarifies how the patch-like behavior differs for the schema array.

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 and resource ('Update a page type') and enumerates the exact fields it can change, making it unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_page_type, get_page_type, and delete_page_type.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Only call after the user confirms.' It also implicitly signals when to use this tool (when a user wants to mutate a page type). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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