LightCMS

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Only the fields you provide are changed' clarifies partial update semantics, and 'Always include a version_comment' establishes a usage requirement not captured in annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first establishes purpose and differentiation, second provides concrete example, third explains mutation semantics and versioning requirements. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contracts (partial updates, versioning requirement) and distinguishes itself from siblings. Could optionally mention error behavior for non-existent paths, but adequately complete as-is.

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 has 100% description coverage (baseline 3). The description adds a concrete JSON example showing how to structure the request object, particularly demonstrating the nested 'data' object usage, which adds practical value beyond the structured schema.

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 specific action ('Update content') and resource (content by URL path), and explicitly distinguishes this from siblings by noting 'instead of its MongoDB ID'—directly contrasting with the likely update_content tool that uses ID.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Useful when you know the page URL but not the MongoDB ID.' This provides clear guidance on selecting this tool over the ID-based update_content sibling.

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