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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing important side effects: 'gm' pages 404 and disappear from lists for non-contributors, 'masked' pages still appear in lists/backlinks under a maskName, and documentType is auto-added to searchable keywords. These details are not visible in the annotations or schema.

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?

Long and information-dense, with each clause carrying distinct value. It could be structured more scannably, but no sentence is wasted and the most critical info (required fields and purpose) appears early.

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 creation tool with an empty input schema, the description is unusually complete: required parameters, optional parameters, enums, cross-tool tag integration, visibility side effects, and exclusion rules are all covered. An output schema is present, so omitting the return shape is acceptable.

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?

The input schema is empty, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines required worldId and name, enumerates all valid documentType values, explains the tags array behavior, and details visibility and maskName semantics. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new page inside a world.' It enumerates intended content types (NPCs, locations, organizations, events) and explicitly excludes items/rules, drawing a clear boundary against sibling tools like imagine_create_world and imagine_create_adventure_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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: valid documentType values are listed, items and rules are routed to vault instead of world pages, and the tag mechanism is tied to a specific sibling tool, imagine_list_world_pages_by_tags. Visibility modes also give conditional usage instructions.

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