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

Annotations establish the non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior that annotations lack: the return payload (pageId, needed since there is no output schema) and the ROOT/Container placement semantics plus the home-page special case.

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 action and the return value, then supporting context in a compact parenthetical. No filler sentences; every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly identifies the return value and its downstream consumers, and it explains the ROOT placement model. It omits only minor points like slug-collision handling or the footer default position (covered in schema), so it is nearly complete for a 6-param nested-object write tool.

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 the schema already documents name, id, position, is404Page, isHomePage, and every seo field. The description's only addition is that seo.title and seo.description can be set at creation time, which is marginal. 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 the specific verb and resource ("Create a page") and pins down what a page is: a type "page" Container under ROOT, with the first being home. An agent can distinguish this from create_site, insert_node, or add_nodes without opening any schema.

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: it returns the pageId that apply_kit_block and add_nodes consume, which tells the agent the create-first ordering, and it routes to get_style_reference({topic:"pages"}) for guidance. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer update_page over this, but the create-vs-update boundary is obvious from the verb.

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