update_page_source

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses critical behavior: it replaces the ENTIRE page source, requires user approval, and is safeguarded against shrinking the source to <50%. These are exactly the destructive-operation details an agent needs.

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 front-loaded and well organized into a purpose statement, mandatory steps, and a safeguard note. Every sentence carries safety or scope information without padding.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the critical safety workflow and size guard. However, it does not address how the optional source parameter or custom_code behaves, which leaves a small gap in an otherwise complete operational picture.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the high-level meaning of 'full page source JSON' and does not clarify optional source behavior or custom_code, so it matches the baseline 3.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('update the full page source JSON') and scopes it to the entire source, which differentiates it from element/content update siblings. It also names get_page_source as the read counterpart, reinforcing the distinction.

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?

It lays out mandatory prerequisites (read with get_page_source, show user changes, get explicit confirmation) and an explicit prohibition ('NEVER call without user approval'), which is strong when-not guidance. It does not name alternative update tools for partial edits, so it falls short of the top score that requires alternatives.

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