Write author entries

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by explicitly saying entries are created or replaced, plus it adds behavior beyond the annotations: no page republish, 1-20 entry limit, and that visitor-authored entries remain untouched. It does not mention ownership/credential requirements (ownerToken or manageUrl) or what the call returns, so some behavioral context is still missing.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the non-republish and visitor-safety details come in supporting positions. The parenthetical example is helpful rather than padding, though the second sentence is slightly dense with clauses.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, limits, and the safety-relevant distinction between author and visitor entries. It omits authentication/ownership prerequisites and any indication of the result shape or partial-failure behavior when writing multiple entries, which matters when replacing up to 20 entries at once.

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 100%, so the schema already defines every parameter including key format and ownerToken defaults. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying that `collection` is a list and each doc is addressed by `key`, but it adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 states a concrete verb (write/create-or-replace) and resource (1-20 entries in one collection of an owned page), and it scopes the effect by noting that republishing is not required and visitors' entries are untouched. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g., delete_page_data, configure_page_data, set_kv) to contrast against, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives clear context for use: writing author-controlled entries (e.g., today's menu) into a list, typically one marked `write: author`, on a page the caller owns. It does not state when not to use it or which sibling handles the adjacent cases (deleting entries, configuring other lists), so the guidance is directional but not exclusionary.

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