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

Annotations mark it non-read-only, open-world, and non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the exact downstream behavior (creates a draft that is never published, the team publishes it, Cleotic later marks the page live) plus cost ('Free') and a user-confirmation requirement. It does not clarify retry/replay behavior, which is only covered in the idempotency_key schema.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler, leading with the action and state change before prerequisites and the confirmation requirement. Every clause carries 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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers the state transition, prerequisite, fallback, cost, and confirmation duty. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for 'brand' by requiring that it resolve to exactly one ready CMS destination, a constraint 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 (send) plus resource (page) plus destination (the brand's connected CMS) and the resulting state (new draft, never published). This clearly separates it from siblings like mark_page_published, create_page, and edit_page 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 a concrete prerequisite ('exactly one ready CMS destination'), a when-not ('otherwise send it from the app'), and a safety directive ('Confirm with the user first'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5, but the routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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