update_status_page

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

The description only says 'Update', which indicates mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, partial update semantics (null preserves current), required permissions, or whether changes trigger a rebuild of the public page. With no annotations provided, the description fails to communicate critical behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and lists key updatable fields. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 of the input schema (nested object with many optional fields) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is too brief. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., that null preserves current value, that fields not sent remain unchanged), which is crucial for a partial update tool. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without consulting the schema extensively.

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 description lists a subset of fields (name, slug, branding, visibility, incident mode) but does not cover all parameters in the input schema (e.g., description, enabled, managedBy). According to context, schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself lacks descriptions; however, the actual schema provided has detailed descriptions for nested fields. Assuming the context is accurate, the tool description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The partial listing adds minimal value.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'status page', and lists specific updatable fields (name, slug, branding, visibility, incident mode). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_status_page, delete_status_page, and get_status_page. However, it is not exhaustive; the schema includes additional updatable fields (description, enabled, managedBy) not mentioned, which could mislead an agent into thinking those cannot be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update_status_page_component, update_status_page_incident) or alternatives like create_status_page. No prerequisites, side effects, or typical use cases are mentioned. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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