Pages Update

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the required OAuth scope (write_content), the API version and the HTTP verb, but it never states whether the update is a full replace or a partial merge - a material ambiguity for a PUT-style call.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, scope and version - each line carries operational value with no filler. Slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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?

With a nested i18n object, an escape-hatch additional_fields parameter and no output schema, the agent still needs to know what an update returns and whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved. The scope/version metadata is helpful, but these behavioral gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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%, with i18n, pageID, publish and additional_fields each documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a page") plus the exact endpoint, so the agent can distinguish it from pages_create, pages_get and pages_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling actions, leaving differentiation to the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the required write_content scope, which signals a mutation requiring write authorization. There is no statement of when to prefer this over pages_create/pages_get or of any preconditions such as the page needing to exist.

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