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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's disclosure of the default append behavior adds value. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as visibility defaults (covered in schema) or any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the default behavior is stated efficiently. 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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the core action and default behavior, while the schema handles parameter details. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the report/template must exist), but this is implied and covered by source_id guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-described. The description adds only the note about appending by default, which is already implied by the position parameter's description. Thus, it provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Add a page') and resource ('report or template'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_page, delete_page, and list_pages. It also conveys the default behavior of appending at the end, making the purpose 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 implies usage for adding pages to existing reports or templates but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. While the context is clear enough, there is no guidance on how it differs from other creation tools like create_report or create_template, leaving room for confusion.

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