update_status_page_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and lists fields; it does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, idempotency, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded and no wasted words. However, it offers little structural organization beyond a parenthetical field list, so it is not maximally helpful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides no usage context, behavioral notes, or return-value information. For a six-parameter mutation tool, this is incomplete; an agent would need to infer partial-update behavior and prerequisites from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating 'display name, explanation, position,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update') and the object ('a status page resource'), and it lists the updatable fields (display name, explanation, position). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_status_page_resource and update_status_page_section, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_status_page_resource, list_status_page_resources, or delete_status_page_resource. The word 'Update' implies an existing resource, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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