swebsy_replace_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool 'OVERWRITES the page', which signals destructive behavior, and emphasizes what it does not do (create/append). However, it does not mention reversibility, confirmation prompts, or whether changes are saved automatically, so it is not fully transparent about all side effects.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by explicit exclusions and a condition for use. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive replace operation with a rich schema, the description covers the primary action, usage context, and exclusions. It mentions 'CURRENTLY SELECTED page' but does not explain how to ensure a page is selected or what happens if none is selected, and with no output schema it omits any description of return values. These are minor gaps given the tool's moderate complexity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for `plan` and `components`, including compact aliases and the instruction to wrap each component in a container. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'Each top-level component should be wrapped in a container,' which is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 action—'Replace ALL top-level sections of the CURRENTLY SELECTED page with a generated list of components'—identifying both the specific resource (the selected page) and the operation (full replacement). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming `create_page` and `add_section` as alternatives for different operations, so an agent can easily tell this tool apart.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks to build/replace/redesign an entire page.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use conditions ('does NOT create a new page (use create_page) and does NOT append a single section (use add_section)') with named alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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