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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: a submit-button is automatically prepended, the form retains its trailing submit-button, and multi-page forms having one submit-button per page is expected rather than duplication. It also clarifies the divider is not a container and only holds a name label.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by critical usage constraints and behavioral gotchas in a logical sequence. Despite being longer than a one-liner, every sentence conveys a distinct instruction or warning relevant to correct invocation.

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 the tool's complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the key structural and sequencing gotchas an agent needs without needing to explain return values.

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 all six parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantic constraints beyond the schema: isThankYouPage must be true for thank-you pages, parentId must not be set to the divider, and after should reference the last content node of the page being closed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Insert a page divider'), explains the resulting structure ('split the form into multiple pages'), and distinguishes the divider from content-insertion siblings by clarifying it is a flat break marker, not a container. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening sibling 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('For a post-submit thank-you page, ALWAYS pass isThankYouPage: true'), explains how to add page content (separate inserts using after, chaining via $prev), and names the wrong approach to avoid ('never by passing parentId = the divider'). It also specifies after = id of the last content node.

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