update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only clarifies that content blocks are not updated; it does not mention permissions required, whether updates merge or replace existing properties, whether archived changes are reversible, or any side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and exclusion are front-loaded, and the use case is stated efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not specify the expected format for database properties, how archived behaves when combined with properties, or what the response will be, leaving an agent to guess about important invocation details.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds some contextual meaning to the 'properties' parameter by tying it to page metadata and database properties, but it does not explain the expected structure of the nested object or how archived interacts with properties.

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 action ('Update a page's properties'), the resource (page), and explicitly excludes content blocks, differentiating it from sibling tools like update_block and append_blocks. It also names the intended use case: modifying page metadata or database properties.

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?

The description gives a direct 'Use when' condition and clarifies that content blocks are out of scope, which implicitly steers agents toward update_block or append_blocks for content edits. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use this tool beyond the content-block exclusion.

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