update_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal steps: creates a new editable page version (PUT page), remaps block IDs, then updates each block. It also states that the new version is not approved, which is an important behavioral trait. This goes beyond vague 'updates content'.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence provides essential information (purpose, process steps, required input, limitation). No redundant text.

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 a complex operation with nested objects and no output schema. The description explains the workflow and the requirement for pre-inspection block IDs, and notes the no-approval behavior. It could mention what the API returns or possible errors, but the core semantics are covered.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds crucial guidance: block IDs must come from the version you inspected, and the tool remaps IDs after creating a new version. The blocks parameter description in the schema also reinforces this. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to supply parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: updating page block content safely. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update-page-by-id and update-block-in-page-area by describing a multi-step composite process (new version creation, block ID remapping, per-block updates), which is specific and action-oriented.

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 provides context: it requires blockID values from the inspected page version, and it notes that the new version is not approved. This gives clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives like update-block-in-page-area for single-block edits, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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