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

The description discloses a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: pages are appended at the end by default. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the write nature is consistent with the 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the only additional behavior mentioned (append by default) is relevant and 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?

Given the high schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, this description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could explicitly note that the page is added to an existing report/template, but the required source_id and source_type parameters already convey that.

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 schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description echoes the report/template target and the append-by-default position behavior, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and names the exact resource ('a page') and target ('report or template'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_report, add_report_section, update_page, and delete_page. It is not a tautology and goes beyond the title.

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 intended context is implied: this tool adds a page to an existing report or template. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as add_report_section or create_report, and no exclusions are stated.

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