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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive write), but the description adds real behaviour: creates a bare shell of one section + one heading, returns root and section ids for insert_nodes/patch_nodes, writes a new draft version, and what breaks if misused (baked static tree, collection-list won't reflect, sitemap/SEO miss). That is context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the exclusion. The parenthetical lists of example slugs are a bit heavy, but each clause carries real routing or behavioural information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description still discloses the return value (root + section ids) and the follow-up tools to use. Combined with the exclusion section, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly or route elsewhere.

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 only 25%, so the description carries much of the burden: it explains `copy_of` semantics and the slug-vs-title expectation implicitly through the example copy flow. The remaining params (slug, title, site_id) are self-evident, so no significant gap remains.

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+resource with scope: creates a one-off page, not a collection detail page. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its nearest siblings (add_content_item, create_collection) by naming the cases it does not handle.

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 explicit when-to-use (About/Contact/Pricing/landing pages), an explicit DO-NOT-use condition (path-parameterised detail pages) and names the correct alternatives for each case. The failure mode of misusing it is also spelled out.

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