update_landing_page

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication (API key), rate limits (max 10 concurrent requests), support for read-only/dry-run modes, and error behavior (404 for invalid page_id). It also notes that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait.

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 well-structured: a concise main sentence, followed by key constraints, usage guidance, authentication/concurrency notes, error behavior, and structured args/returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (update with multiple params, constraints, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, constraints, when to use alternatives, authorization, concurrency, error handling, parameter details, and return structure. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed, human-readable explanations for all 6 parameters, including where to obtain page_id (from list_landing_pages) and the meaning of each field. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Update settings of an existing landing page' with the qualifier 'Only provided fields are changed', and distinguishes from siblings like create_landing_page, publish_landing_page, unpublish_landing_page, and get_landing_page by explicitly mentioning when to use those alternatives.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including that list_id and template cannot be changed (use create new page), and that publish/unpublish should be used for live status changes. It also recommends inspecting current settings with get_landing_page before updating.

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