update-status-page

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the tool's name. With no annotations provided, it fails to disclose whether a token is required, whether updates are partial, or any side effects, making it essentially a tautology.

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 extremely concise, using only six words. However, it is under-specified for a mutation tool with 6 parameters, lacking necessary context; it's concise but not appropriately informative, so a middle score is warranted.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation, no output schema), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't mention return values, required fields, or the implications of updating a status page, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema fully describes all 6 parameters with individual descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('existing status page'), which distinguishes it from create-status-page and delete-status-page. However, it lacks details on what fields can be updated or any scope, preventing a higher score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implies it's not for creating pages, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like create-status-page or refer to any prerequisites.

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