update_page_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a mutation (changing 'published') but doesn't state side effects, reversibility, permissions, or whether only the published field changes. There's no mention of errors or return behavior. The tool name suggests broader 'settings' but the description narrows it, which could confuse.

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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and is easy to parse. There is no unnecessary filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits any guidance on how to identify a page (e.g., how to obtain page_url), what course_identifier expects, or whether published must be explicitly true/false. It doesn't clarify that it only changes publication status, not other settings. For a simple toggle, this is minimal, but an agent might need more context to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter details. It doesn't explain what course_identifier, page_url, or published mean, how to format them, or how they relate to the action. The description must compensate for missing schema descriptions but does not.

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 is specific: 'Publish or unpublish a page.' It names the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_page_content (which alters content) and create_page (which creates a page) by focusing on the published status toggle. The action is unambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., page must exist), nor does it explain that this tool is specifically for toggling publication status and not for other settings. An agent has to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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