update_page_content

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds the required read-before-write and explicit-user-approval workflow. The destructive semantic (whole-language map replacement) lives in the schema, not the prose, but the approval disclosure is meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 critical constraint front-loaded after the purpose statement. The all-caps emphasis is slightly heavy but the content is dense and earns its place without 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior — the mandatory approval workflow. The replacement-merge semantics are handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the content map structure and replacement semantics. The description adds only the notion of a per-language scope, which is already implied by language_code in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (create/update) and resource (page content) scoped to a single language, so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like update_page_element or update_page_source, but the resource is concrete enough to distinguish it.

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?

Gives an explicit mandatory pre-call workflow: read existing content via list_page_contents, show the user, and obtain confirmation. However it never states when this tool should be chosen over update_page_element/update_page_elements or update_page_source, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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