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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports rich data structures (zoning blocks, entry points, CTAs, tags), which is useful context beyond the bare 'add a page'. However, it does not mention mutation side effects, idempotency, required authentication, or what happens to related resources, though these are less critical for a straightforward create operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the core action and the hierarchy parameter, the second enumerates the advanced data capabilities. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every word 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (14 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and highlights the non-obvious rich-data capabilities. The schema handles detailed parameter semantics, and the description does not need to explain return values for a create operation. It is slightly incomplete regarding edge cases (e.g., what 'Add' implies for existing pages), but it provides enough for an agent to decide to invoke the tool.

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 conceptual grouping by calling out zoning_blocks, entry_points, cta, and tags as 'rich data', but it does not add format, syntax, or optionality details beyond what the schema already documents. It provides mild extra meaning but does not compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Add a page to a project's sitemap'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like create_project, update_node, and delete_node. It also names the key hierarchy mechanism (parent_id) and the rich-data capabilities, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even 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?

The description gives one explicit usage instruction ('Use parent_id to create hierarchy') and implies single-page creation, but it never states when to prefer create_node over bulk_create_nodes or update_node. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between single and bulk creation.

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