update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'update' and lists properties, without clarifying whether settings are merged or replaced, whether changes are immediately published, or any permission requirements. The mention of 'custom code' is not backed by a schema parameter, further muddying expectations.

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, front-loaded with the action 'Update'. It effectively lists key property categories without unnecessary filler. The slight inaccuracy regarding 'custom code' prevents a perfect score, but the structure is efficient.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including a nested object (settings) and no output schema or annotations. A one-line description is insufficient to guide correct invocation. It omits the is_homepage property, does not explain the settings object structure, and lacks information about return values or side effects, making it incomplete for an agent.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantic value beyond listing some property names; it actually introduces 'custom code' which is not a direct parameter, potentially confusing the agent.

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 updates page properties and lists specific fields (name, slug, settings, custom code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page (creation) and update_page_content (content-specific updates). However, 'custom code' is not a parameter in the schema, introducing minor ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Update page properties' implies top-level metadata updates, but it does not mention exclusions (e.g., use update_page_content for content changes) or name preferred alternatives. Similar to the update_drive calibration, this lacks contextual direction.

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