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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description goes well beyond by explaining that everything is created as a draft, that re-creating an existing path returns already_exists rather than duplicating, the per-page status set (created/already_exists/failed/limit_reached), the 10 MB HTML budget, and the brand_mismatch guard for expectedBrandId. The only real gap is how limit_reached interacts with the daily quota mid-batch, which is stated but tersely.

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?

Usage guidance is front-loaded and essentially every sentence adds operational information (statuses, limits, idempotency, quota). It is dense to the point of being cramped - the daily-quota paragraph runs long and the parenthetical Japanese keyword clusters are noisy - but there is little pure filler.

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 batch mutation tool this is complete: creation scope, draft status, idempotency, per-item statuses, size and count caps, quota by plan, and the cross-workspace guard are all covered, and an output schema exists to carry the detailed return shape. An agent can call it correctly without further questions.

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 path, name, html, locale, and expectedBrandId are already documented. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema (paths within a call must differ, 10 MB aggregate HTML, status vocabulary per page), but not per-parameter format guidance, so the baseline plus a slight bump is warranted.

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 with scope: create up to 20 pages per call on the workspace's site, each as a draft at its own path. It implicitly separates itself from single-page creation ("making many pages ... at once", "A bigger job runs as several calls of up to 20 pages each") and from publish_pages and create_preview by naming what those siblings do.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ("Use this tool when making many pages of the workspace's site at once, such as one guide or FAQ page for each question") plus example phrasings. It also names the alternatives: nothing goes live until publish_pages, previews come from create_preview, and large jobs are split into multiple calls of up to 20.

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