Update a page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses partial-update behavior and that the operation is free and consumes no credits. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as return value, authentication requirements, rate limits, or conflict handling (e.g., slug 409 collision is left to the schema).

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, partial update behavior, target use case, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource and has no wasted words.

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?

This is a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the use case. It is too minimal for the tool's complexity, leaving the agent without critical details for correct invocation.

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 only 46%, so the description must compensate. It only groups parameters into 'fields and/or SEO meta' without explaining individual parameter semantics, null-passing behavior, or the homepage demotion side effect beyond what the schema already states. This is insufficient for the many undocumented parameters.

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 it patches a page's fields and/or SEO meta, using the specific verb 'patch' and resource 'page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the use case of backfilling meta_* on pages auto-created by register_component, which separates it from update_blog_post or create_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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use scenario ('Use this to backfill meta_* on a page that was auto-created by register_component') and clarifies partial update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are touched'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for creation/deletion.

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