update_page_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It thoroughly explains that this is destructive ('replaces the ENTIRE page source'), requires user approval, and has a safeguard ('blocks if new source is <50% of existing size'). This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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 with the core purpose, then uses a numbered 'IMPORTANT' list to convey preconditions and safety. It is longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence serves a functional role, and the structure makes the critical caveats scannable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong context: purpose, mandatory preconditions, destruction scope, and a safety rule. It lacks only an explicit mention of when to use this instead of related update tools, but overall it is adequate 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 baseline is 3. The description adds limited extra parameter meaning—notably that 'source' refers to the full page source JSON and that the safeguard applies to size—but does not clarify 'page_id' or 'custom_code' beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Directly update the full page source JSON.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'full page source' and 'replaces the ENTIRE page source,' contrasting with partial update tools like update_page_element.

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 provides explicit preconditions and a mandatory sequence: read existing source with get_page_source first, show the user what will change, and obtain explicit confirmation. It warns against use without approval and explains the tool's scope, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_page_element for partial edits.

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