Backfill Published Dates

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it is metadata-only, pages do not re-render, the target population is narrowly defined, and dry_run can preview the count. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the annotation set already covers the safety profile.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and scoped condition. Each sentence adds distinct information (target population, effect, metadata-only behavior, dry-run guidance) with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the mutation, its target set, its non-rendering nature, and the dry-run preview. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter maintenance tool; only permissions and exact return format are unstated, and the annotations largely cover operational safety.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines dry_run as counting pages that would change. The description adds sequencing value by instructing the agent to use dry_run first, which is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's static description.

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 action (give published pages a published date), the exact target population (published pages lacking a published date, created before v7.3.2), and the effect (date equals creation date). It is clearly distinguishable from generic update tools like update_content or bulk_update_content.

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?

Specifies the condition for using the tool (pages without published dates, pre-v7.3.2) and adds an operational guideline: use dry_run first to see the count. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, keeping it just short of a 5.

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