edit_page_content

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true)Skip. The description simply says 'Edit the content' without explaining that it overwrites existing content or any side effects. Since the annotation already signals destructiveness, the description doesn't contradict, but it also doesn't add specificity about the nature of the edit.

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 and uses a standard verb-object structure. It clearly states what is edited and the target, but lacks any additional structure like examples or return details.

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?

No information about side effects beyond the annotation, no edge cases, no prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). Minimal context is provided; the tool is simple but could mention that content is replaced entirely.

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?

All parameters are described: course_identifier (code or ID), page_url_or_id (slug or ID), new_content (HTML), and optional title. Descriptions are clear enough, though no examples or constraints beyond types.

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 tool's purpose: 'Edit the content of a specific page.' It identifies the resource (page) and the action (edit content), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_page_settings' or 'bulk_update_pages', though the focus on content (HTML) and singular page implies difference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_page_settings or create_page. It does not mention scenarios where it is inappropriate or any exclusions.

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