update_uib_page

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds a '[Write]' tag, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false, but provides no additional behavioral details such as whether fields are replaced or merged, or any side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a tag. It efficiently communicates the core action but lacks supporting details. It is not overly long, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of updating path or layout, nor does it describe the return behavior. Agents lack necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 25% description coverage (only sys_id has a description). The tool description does not explain the remaining parameters (title, path, layout) or their constraints. It adds no value beyond the minimal schema definitions.

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 'Update an existing UI Builder page' specifying the verb (update) and resource (UI Builder page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_uib_page, delete_uib_page, get_uib_page, and list_uib_pages.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_uib_page for new pages, delete_uib_page for removal). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or any usage context.

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