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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the mutation effects, deep-copy semantics with a fresh id, no page-count limit, the active-page side effect, and the return value. This is rich, specific behavioral transparency for a mutating 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 action and then efficiently covers conditional behavior, limits, side effects, and return value. Each sentence carries useful information, and nothing feels redundant or padded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description properly states that the new page's index is returned. It also covers the behavior of both parameterized modes, the active-page effect, and the absence of a page-count limit. For a 3-parameter tool with one required parameter, this is complete enough for safe 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: duplicate_index controls whether a blank or deep-copied page is appended, and the blank page is sized to the project's canvas. The name and projectId parameters are adequately covered by 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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Append a page to the project.' It further clarifies the operation by explaining the single-to-multi-page transition and highlighting that the new page becomes active, distinguishing this from page-related siblings like delete_page, reorder_pages, and select_page.

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 gives clear usage context through two explicit modes: without duplicate_index a blank page is appended, and with duplicate_index an existing page is deep-copied. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditional behavior gives enough guidance for an agent to select the correct invocation.

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