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

The description does not disclose side effects, output, or any behavioral details beyond the basic create action. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide some context, but the description itself adds little beyond purpose. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise, with only two short sentences. The first sentence 'Create paragraph.' is redundant with the tool name, but the second sentence adds key context. Overall, it is efficient and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand what the tool does, but it lacks information about return values or any post-condition of the creation. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need additional details about what to expect after calling the tool. This is a minor gap.

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 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description text itself does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline score is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create one paragraph under a CMS map item.' It specifies the resource type (map item) and the action (create paragraph), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create paragraphs for other CMS entities (e.g., cms_create_article_paragraph).

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 description implies usage context by stating the paragraph is created 'under a CMS map item,' which is sufficient for an agent to know when to choose this tool over similar paragraph-creation tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the target is clear.

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