modx_virtualpage_update_handler

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little. It signals a mutation and that the target can be selected by id or name (a useful lookup detail the schema doesn't state), but says nothing about which fields are writable, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, permission requirements, or reversibility — significant gaps for a 9-parameter write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is nowhere near complete. An agent could invoke it but could not predict the effect of any field beyond id/name.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that id and name are alternative selectors (real added meaning), but rank, type, cache, entry, active, content, and description are entirely undocumented — the ambiguous enum/number union on 'type' is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Update a VirtualPage handler') and adds an identifier hint ('by id or name'), which distinguishes it from modx_virtualpage_create_handler, modx_virtualpage_get_handler, and modx_virtualpage_delete_handler. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the mutation-plus-identifier combination makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer this over get/create/delete handler, and no indication of whether partial updates are allowed. The only contextual clue is 'by id or name', which tells the agent how to target a record but not when to reach for this tool.

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