touch_page

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds specific behavioral detail: it updates the modification timestamp and last editor, and explicitly states it does not change content. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the exact effect, though it does not mention side effects like permissions or rate limits.

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 extraneous words. The core action is stated first, followed by the use case. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is efficient.

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 simple mutation tool with two integer parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it doesn't do, and when to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but these are minor for this simple operation. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema provides only parameter names (pageId, collectiveId) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the names alone. This is a significant gap, as the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's action ('Bump a page's modification timestamp and record the authenticated user as its last editor'), the resource (a page), and explicitly notes it does not change content. This distinguishes it from update_page and other page operations. The use case 'marking a page as reviewed' further clarifies intent.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Useful for marking a page as reviewed') and implies when to use it (when you want to update metadata without altering content). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the phrasing strongly suggests when this is appropriate.

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