thincms_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the partial update nature, the content format requirement, the alternative for large content (contentFile), and the automatic redirect on slug change. This is good coverage for a mutation tool, though it could mention potential side effects like re-indexing.

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 highly concise with only two sentences, covering the core purpose and key behavioral notes without extraneous details. Information is front-loaded with the primary action and partial update characteristic.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: update operation, partial update, content format, size guidance, redirect behavior, and siteId override (mentioned in schema). It lacks details on return value or error conditions but is sufficient for an update tool among many siblings.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the relationship between 'content' and 'contentFile' (size threshold) and the redirect behavior tied to 'slug'. For a tool with complete schema descriptions, this is adequate.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing static page', specifying partial update behavior, content format (raw HTML), size guidance, and implicit side effect (auto-redirect on slug change). This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like create_page, delete_page, and get_page.

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 usage through its update verb and mentions partial update, content size considerations, and redirect behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar update tools (e.g., thincms_update_post) or provide alternative scenarios.

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