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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover basic mutation safety. It adds a behavioral detail about Foundry stripping <style> and <script> tags, which is valuable. It doesn't discuss permissions or reversibility, but for a creation tool this is acceptable. No contradiction with 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence stating the primary purpose, followed by one sentence with practical guidance. Every word contributes—no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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?

With 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenario (adding text pages with HTML) and points to a template resource. It doesn't mention the return value, but for a creation tool that's minor. It also implicitly differentiates from update/delete siblings. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for the 'content' parameter by explaining how to structure HTML, use inline styles, and link documents. It also mentions handout-template-list as a source of ready-made layouts, which is beyond the schema's simple 'HTML content for text pages'. This elevates the score to 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a resource ('a page to an existing journal entry'), and differentiates from siblings like journal-create (creates a journal) and journal-page-update (updates a page). It is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides usage context for text pages: how to use inline styles, link documents via @UUID, and mentions handout-template-list as an alternative for ready-made layouts. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context for the main text-page case is clear and hints at alternatives.

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