validate_page

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

Automatically fixes layout defects deterministically and returns auto_fixed, errors, and warnings. This adds behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint annotation, though persistence side effects are not detailed.

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 lengthy and dense, listing many validation rules in a single paragraph. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability, though it is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Explains return structure (auto_fixed, errors, warnings) but lacks detailed output format (e.g., error object fields). Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% and describes the 'page' parameter adequately. The tool description adds behavioral context but does not enhance parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 validates a page source against schema, semantic rules, and form-data bindings, with auto-fix behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page_schema and 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?

The description implies usage during page creation/editing but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_page or patch_page. No 'when-not' or direct comparison.

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