update_page

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: partial update (only passed fields change), special handling of 'status' (publish/unpublish), and that empty 'html' leaves the body unchanged. It also mentions the return value (updated page summary).

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the critical behaviors (partial update, status/html handling). It doesn't explain error handling or prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Slightly more detail on other parameters would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to 'html' and 'status' parameters, explaining their special behaviors. It also clarifies the partial update model. However, other parameters (e.g., title, excerpt) are not explicitly described, but their names are self-explanatory.

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 the resource 'existing page by id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_page' and 'delete_page' by focusing on modification of an existing 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?

Provides specific guidance on using 'status' to publish/unpublish and the behavior of empty 'html'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the partial update semantics and examples imply its appropriate use case.

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