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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does: this is a human-in-the-loop write gated on owner approval of the exact text. It does not say what happens on a duplicate title or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and approval gate, then the exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential thing an agent could get wrong: calling before owner approval. Remaining gaps are the post-call outcome (created page identity, duplicate handling), which are minor for a straightforward create.

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 33%: title and content have no field descriptions, and only confirmed is documented. The description partially compensates by requiring the "exact title and complete text" — implying full-fidelity, non-truncated content — but adds nothing about title uniqueness, length limits, or content format.

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 and resource ("Create one Knowledge Base text page") with an explicit scope ("one") and audience ("the receptionist can cite on calls"). The closing "Does not upload files" actively separates it from file-oriented siblings like create_upload_link and list_customer_files.

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 a concrete precondition workflow: show the exact title and full text, obtain explicit approval, then call with confirmed=true. The "does not upload files" clause adds a negative case. It stops short of naming knowledge_update_page or knowledge_get_page as the alternative path, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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