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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a possible `needs_confirmation` return, the requirement to surface the proposal to the user and re-call with an `approvalId`, and a grounding constraint ('Only record what the human has actually told you').

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing, confirmation handling, and a grounding rule. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the creation semantics, the dedup prerequisite, the confirmation handshake, and the data-grounding constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 7 parameters including type values, workspace rules, visibility enum, and approvalId. The description reinforces the approvalId round-trip but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides; 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+resource ('Creates a typed page in the workspace's Compass compendium') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `compass_pages_list` and the alternative action (link instead of create). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance ('don't create a page for a subject the map already has; link to it instead') plus a named prerequisite (`compass_pages_list`). It also spells out the confirmation flow and what to do when `needs_confirmation` is returned.

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