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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial context: draft-only creation, no publish action returned, placeholder blocks to be filled, and anonymous demo expiry. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but the behavioral disclosure is well beyond the annotations.

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 critical caveat (low-level/legacy) and the alternative are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct actionable instruction (fill via block_update, draft only, stop and show preview, publish condition, demo expiry). No sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers the remaining gaps—draft-only semantics, the follow-up block_update step, and the publish guardrail. Nothing needed to call this tool 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 89%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including enums and the 'auto' inference. The description only references title, displayName, and preset/'auto' at a level the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('create a blank link-in-bio scaffold from a style preset') and immediately scopes it as 'low-level/legacy'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling page_create_from_brief, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Not for normal page requests'), names the alternative (page_create_from_brief), and adds an exclusion for page_publish with the exact condition that permits it. The block_update follow-up and stop-and-show-preview instruction cover the rest of the workflow.

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