Replace Page Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not mention that this operation is destructive (replaces all direct children), whether it is reversible, any authentication requirements, or what happens to existing content. 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 and very concise. However, it omits critical details, so conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness. It is front-loaded but not optimally structured for clarity given the tool's complexity.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of 10 sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the replacement behavior (e.g., whether blocks are deleted before adding), error scenarios, or return value. It does not help an agent distinguish between this and similar tools.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (page_id, markdown, blocks). The tool description adds 'Simplified block JSON' for blocks, which aligns with schema. However, it does not provide additional semantics such as format constraints, optionality relationships, or the effect of providing both markdown and blocks.

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 'Replace' and the resource 'direct child blocks of a page', and specifies the inputs as 'blocks or Markdown.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like append_blocks (which appends) and delete_blocks (which deletes) by implying a complete replacement of children.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with append_blocks or update_block_text. It merely states the action without context.

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