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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: PRO+ gating, server-side validation against a component allowlist and https-only url policy, the 'omit content to start empty' default, and the contribute-access requirement.

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-loads purpose, then scoping, then content rules, then permissions. Information-dense but each clause earns its place; only lightly long.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still covers scoping, validation policy, permission prerequisites, and the empty-content default. An agent has enough to invoke correctly, though the return shape is unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces projectId scoping and content validation but largely restates what the schema already documents, adding only the 'omit it to start empty' behavioral note.

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 a web part page') with the org-vs-project scope distinction made explicit. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby create_wiki_page or create_whiteboard siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 routing guidance: omit projectId for an org page, pass it for a project page, and states the access requirement for each case. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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