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

With annotations already declaring a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, the description adds substantive behavior: slugs are never merged on conflict, only one page can be default and isDefault:true demotes the previous one, new pages are seeded with a 'Services' section and start enabled and public. It also discloses the auth requirements (mcp scope, mcp:read refused, user role), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, with the core action and conflict rule front-loaded before configuration semantics and auth constraints. It is dense to the point of being a single wall of text, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 13-parameter creation tool, the description covers the side effects, defaults, follow-up tools, and permission requirements an agent needs to commit the call. An output schema exists, so the return value needs no further explanation beyond the mention that the created page is returned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema for isDefault (the first page always becomes default, and setting it demotes the existing default) and for page initialization state, which the schema does not express.

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 new status page for the organization') plus what it returns. It is clearly distinguished from update_status_page and manage_status_page_section, which are named as the follow-up tools for later edits.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to manage_status_page_section for additional sections and update_status_page for later edits, and warns that duplicate slugs are rejected rather than merged. It stops short of telling the agent to call list_status_pages first to avoid a slug conflict, but the context is otherwise clear.

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