update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates a page, but provides no information on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or how partial updates are handled. This is insufficient 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 short sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could arguably include more detail without losing conciseness.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the status parameter, the page_id identifier, or any behavioral aspects. It only scratches the surface of what the tool does.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameter semantics. It mentions 'title' and 'layout', which map to the title and layout_id properties, but leaves page_id and status unexplained. This partial coverage does not adequately compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as updating a page and specifies the updatable properties (title or layout). It distinguishes from sibling update_* tools by naming 'page' as the resource. However, it omits the 'status' field, making the scope slightly incomplete.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of related tools like create_page or update_module, nor any indication of prerequisites or context where this tool should be selected.

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