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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: the page starts nearly empty, is selected by default, and returns id/fileName. It omits auth/permission needs, but the post-creation workflow guidance is substantial.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, then workflow and disambiguation. No filler; every sentence carries routing or behavioral 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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (id, fileName), the initial state of the created page, and how to populate/link it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with all three params (name, select, fileName) fully documented including slug/folder syntax and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a NEW blank page') plus the effect (selects it, returns id/fileName). It explicitly distinguishes itself from replace_page_content and link_page, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without reading 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?

Explicit routing: 'Use THIS to add an additional page; use replace_page_content (NOT this) to overwrite the current page's content.' It also names the follow-up tools (replace_page_content, add_section, link_page) and when to reach for them.

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