Update page

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

The annotation only says `destructiveHint: true`, which is generic. The description adds key behavioral transparency with 'Only provided fields change', clarifying partial update semantics. It does not describe side effects like broken links or unpublishing consequences, but this is a meaningful addition beyond the annotation.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, partial-update behavior, and a critical prerequisite. There is zero fluff and information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 an update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to obtain the required ID, and the key behavioral nuance. It does not explain return values, but none are defined, and the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds the useful global note that only provided fields change, which clarifies how omitting optional parameters behaves. This is a marginal addition beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 states a clear action ('Update an existing page') and specifies the exact fields that can be modified (title, body, handle, publish status). It distinguishes from the create sibling by emphasizing 'existing page', but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 prerequisite ('Get the page GID from page_list'), which implies the required context for usage. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives like page_create or menu_update, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully stated.

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