default_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update page properties', which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., archiving), permissions needed, or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. While concise, it sacrifices informative content that could be included without bloating.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each property, the expected JSON structure, or the effect of the 'archived' flag. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input guidance.

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 should clarify parameter semantics. However, it does not explain what each parameter (properties_json, icon_json, cover_json, archived) means or expects in terms of format. The agent must rely on parameter names, which is risky.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('page properties'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, the '[default]' prefix adds noise and does not differentiate from siblings meaningfully, as the name already distinguishes it from create or retrieve page tools.

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 like create_page (which also sets properties) or update_block. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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