update_status_page

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

Discloses merge behavior ('reads the page first and merges'), replace semantics for check_ids, destructive slug changes that break public links, and privacy consequences of visibility='public'. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations and aligns with destructiveHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core update behavior, and every sentence contributes a distinct rule or warning: partial updates, replacement semantics, link breakage, and public visibility risks. It is appropriately detailed for 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 five-parameter tool with destructive effects and no output schema, the description covers merge behavior, replacement, error conditions, data sources, and privacy caveats. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter insight: how to add one monitor by combining existing ids from list_status_pages with the new id, and that omitting check_ids can never blank the page. This meaningfully increases utility beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 the operation explicitly: update a status page's title, slug, visibility, or monitor set. Names the resource and specific fields, and is clearly distinct from create_status_page, delete_status_page, and update_monitor.

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 strong usage context: only pass fields you want to change, omit to preserve current values, and pass existing ids plus a new monitor to avoid blanking the page. It does not explicitly name create/delete alternatives, but the partial-update and replacement semantics make when to use this tool clear.

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