apply-page-changes

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

With the idempotentHint annotation true, the safety of retries is known. The description adds context about accepting the 'full new body', implying page body replacement, but it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., whether unspecified fields are reset, or if there are permission requirements). It provides some value beyond annotations but lacks richness.

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, immediately states the core action, and contains no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a write operation. The description covers the basic purpose and workflow, but it omits details about return values, error cases, and what happens to optional fields. It is adequate for a simple write tool but lacks thoroughness.

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 already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight nuance by specifying that newContent is the 'full new body', which clarifies its role, but it does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters.

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 ('Write revised HTML content to a Canvas page') and identifies the specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is the 'second step after patch-page-content', which differentiates it from related page edit 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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Intended as the second step after patch-page-content.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative actions such as update-page-content.

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