update_page_settings

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation with potential destructive effects. The description adds the useful boundary that content is not changed, but it does not disclose what makes it destructive (e.g., unpublishing a page, changing front page, altering editing roles). The schema carries some of this burden, but the description itself could add more context.

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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place by clarifying both the action and the scope (existing page, no content change). No fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not mention what the tool returns, potential failure modes, or the significance of the destructive hint. However, the rich schema and annotations partially compensate, making this an adequate but not complete description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, except implicitly clarifying that all parameters are settings-related (not content), which is a minor addition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('settings for an existing page') and explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do ('without changing content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_page_content and delete_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?

The phrase 'without changing content' implies the tool is for settings-only updates, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it's one step below explicit usage guidelines.

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