update_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint of requiring prior reads and user confirmation, but it does not describe whether the operation merges or replaces content, nor any other side effects.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the warning following. Every word earns its place; it is concise without being under-specified.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a mutating tool given the schema details and the strong safety warning. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is not required. Some details about content structure could be added, but the essential context is present.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions ('Page content', 'Page ID', 'SEO meta tags', 'Language code'), so the description adds little. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 states 'Create/update page content for a specific language,' clearly identifying the verb, resource (page content), and scope (language). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_page, update_page_element, and update_page_source.

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 mandates a pre-call workflow: read existing content with list_page_contents and obtain explicit user confirmation. It explicitly forbids updating without approval, providing strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

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