update_page_elements

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: a mandatory confirmation gate, explicit data-loss risk, dry_run default tied to confirm_mode, and per-field merge semantics (shallow merge for style/config/specials, replace for events/bindings). This is context well beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then a clean STEP-by-STEP structure with the safety rule emphasized. The repetition ('NEVER proceed', 'You MUST', 'risks data loss') is slightly redundant but defensible for a destructive operation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it explains the dry_run return (per-element diff), the apply path, and merge behavior. An agent has everything it needs to call it safely and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not carry: which update fields shallow-merge versus replace, and the return format of the dry_run call. It stops short of detailing individual field shapes, but it exceeds the baseline.

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+resource+scope: 'Batch update multiple elements in one page.' The 'batch/multiple' framing distinguishes it from the singular sibling update_page_element. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 three-step workflow: call with dry_run=true first, show diffs and get approval, then call with dry_run=false. It states when-not (never skip confirmation) and the tool's own dry_run default. Nothing about selection or sequencing is left to inference.

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