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

Annotations only supply the generic readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=false profile, so the description must add real behavior and it does: titles are unique within the project, Info is never attached to a workflow connection, and it can change at any stage of a run. It omits what happens on a duplicate title and any permission requirements, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the disambiguation sentence. It is slightly long and the 'such as where it is listed, how its marketing is done...' list is illustrative filler, but each sentence carries a distinct constraint (uniqueness, currency, lifecycle, instruction redirect).

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers what the resource is, uniqueness, lifecycle, and the sibling boundary. The remaining gap is the failure mode for a duplicate title and what the create returns, which the agent would have to discover empirically.

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 all five parameters (including requestId's idempotent-retry semantics and the unique-title constraint) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces uniqueness for title but adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond that baseline.

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 (Create) and resource (Info page) and then defines the resource by example: 'a titled page of facts about the project that are not rules or features'. It also carves out the boundary against the sibling concept, telling the agent that rules for how to work belong in an instruction, so create_instruction vs create_info is separable without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for use (facts about listing, marketing, outside accounts) and an explicit redirect for the adjacent case ('Rules for how to work belong in an instruction instead'). It also names update_info for keeping the page current. It stops short of stating exclusions like when an idea, rule, or feature should be created instead, so it is short of a 5.

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