patch-page-content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Does not write to Canvas' and explains the required follow-up call. It also discloses the return value (HTML body plus edit instructions) and optional styleguide inclusion, adding useful behavioral context 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 four short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence earns its place: core purpose, persistence note with next step, optional styleguide mention, and alternative for full replacement. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns the HTML body alongside edit instructions, making the return value clear. The workflow is complete: fetch and craft instructions, then apply with apply-page-changes. It also covers optional styleguide use and distinguishes from update-page-content, offering full context for a read-only patch tool.

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%, so all parameters are described. The description adds meaning for key parameters: it clarifies 'instructions' are natural-language edit instructions the model applies, and 'includeStyleguide' is an optional inline styleguide for formatting. This goes beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it fetches a page's current HTML body and returns it with edit instructions for the model to apply. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update-page-content (full replacement) and apply-page-changes (persistence), making the tool's purpose unique among siblings.

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?

It explicitly says the tool does not write to Canvas and instructs to follow up with apply-page-changes to persist, providing a clear when-to-use and next-step. It also names update-page-content as the alternative for full replacement, offering explicit usage guidance.

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