ghost_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It only states the action 'update' but does not mention idempotency, error behavior (e.g., what if id is invalid), auth requirements, or effects on related fields like html vs markdown. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence, no filler. However, it is too sparse for a tool with nine parameters; the description could include key details like 'use html for full HTML or markdown for markdown content' without becoming wordy. It is concise but under-specifies, so a middle score.

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 tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain return values, behavior on missing id, or how multiple fields are applied. An agent may not know whether updating triggers a publish or other side effects.

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 nine parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3. It does not clarify relationships like the exclusivity of html and markdown.

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 the verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing static page in Ghost CMS', which clearly identifies the operation on a page resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghost_update_post by naming 'page', but it doesn't explicitly clarify the difference between a page and a post or specify any edge conditions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ghost_create_page or ghost_update_post. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., page must already exist) or alternatives. The agent is left inferring from the name alone.

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