pages_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: partial-update semantics (only provided fields change) and automatic handling of Ghost's updated_at collision check. It omits auth/permission needs, whether unpublished-to-published transitions have side effects, and what the response looks like for a mutation tool.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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core update semantics front-loaded ahead of the two behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too thin — it explains partial-update behavior but leaves most parameters, permission requirements, and validation constraints unaddressed.

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 only 32% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies one parameter's semantics ('the body is replaced only when html is given'), but the other undocumented fields (og_title, twitter_title, custom_excerpt, featured, etc.) get no added meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a page'), which is unambiguous against siblings like pages_create, pages_delete, pages_read and pages_browse. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings beyond the verb, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. when to reach for pages_create vs pages_update). The partial-update note describes mechanics, not when this tool should be selected over its siblings.

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