Update Page Title

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations by specifying that the body and version metadata are unchanged. This clarifies the exact scope of the mutation and avoids ambiguity about 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 extremely concise, with a single front-loaded sentence stating the core action and scope, followed by a compact argument list. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 two-parameter, single-purpose tool, the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential behavioral nuance (preserving body and version metadata) and parameter meanings. Since there is no output schema, not explaining return values is acceptable. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the tool is simple enough that this isn't a critical omission.

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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description compensates by providing clear definitions: 'page_id: The ID of the page to rename' and 'title: The new title for the page.' This fully explains both parameters, making their purpose unambiguous despite the sparse schema.

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 function: 'Rename a page without changing its body or version metadata.' This uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (page), and explicitly distinguishes it from general page updates by scoping it to title changes only. The sibling update_page tool is implicitly contrasted, as this one is specialized for renaming.

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 implies the tool is for renaming only, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_page. It provides clear context ('Rename a page...') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, which prevents a higher score.

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