update_page_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the crucial replace/overwrite semantic ("Complete replacement property mapping"), which tells the agent that existing properties not included are lost, and states the return is the updated page. It omits auth/permission requirements, revertability, and confirmation of destructive scope beyond the word "replace."

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded with the core action and each line earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter mutation; no filler sentences. Minor verbosity in restating the parameter names, but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the terse "Returns: JSON-compatible updated page" is acceptable and return format need not be re-explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, however, the description should say more about side effects (that unlisted properties are dropped), permissions, or validation behavior. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains all three parameters (properties as a complete replacement mapping, id as page identifier, path as slash-separated path) and clarifies precedence with "id preferred when both selectors are supplied." The meaning gap is closed, though the string-map value type of properties is not elaborated.

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?

"Replace a page's properties" gives a specific verb (replace) and resource (page properties), which is enough to distinguish it from tag-oriented siblings like update_page_tags. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with close alternatives such as append_to_page or edit_page, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only routing hint is "id: Page identifier, preferred when both selectors are supplied," which is parameter-selection advice, not tool-selection advice. An agent gains nothing about when this tool beats append_to_page or edit_page.

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