MintPage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does this well: it discloses permanence, irreversibility, the user-visible URL effect, and an API-key requirement. It omits any detail on permission scope or errors, which keeps it from 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the destructive consequence is front-loaded ahead of the caution and the auth note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover safety and effect, which it does (irreversible, user confirmation, API key, visible outcome). The only gap is that it never explains the page_id argument or what the call returns on success or failure.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it never mentions page_id, its UUID format, or whether the page must be published first. The single parameter is named and typed clearly enough that an agent can likely infer its use.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently take a page offline') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like publish_page or update_page. An agent can identify the operation's intent and scope without opening the 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?

It states a clear precondition ('confirm with the user first') and an assumption about authentication ('Requires an API key'), which tells the agent when not to call it blindly. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., update_page to hide a page instead), so it is not a full 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and 'works for guests too' is a useful auth/permission disclosure. Beyond that, it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or whether the returned plan data can be stale — modest coverage for what is a low-risk, zero-parameter read.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information (what is shown, then who can call it). No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information, and it identifies the data returned (plan, usage vs. limits, upgrade/key paths) plus the guest-access condition. That is sufficient for an agent to call a zero-parameter read correctly, though it could note whether the response differs for guests.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics to document and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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 ('Show') and enumerates the resource content: current plan, usage against limits, and upgrade/key locations. The resource ('account') is clear enough that no sibling differentiation is needed, since the sibling tools are all page-related operations.

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?

The line 'Works for guests too' implies the calling context (no authenticated account required), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing, and no named alternative for users who want account-mutating operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the API key requirement, ownership constraint, and exact return fields (view count, last viewed time, 30-day breakdown). It omits error behavior, rate limits, and whether the page_id must belong to the authenticated user.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded with the value proposition before the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently names the returned metrics and the auth prerequisite. It could specify the page_id source or access failure behavior, but is otherwise complete.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, though format uuid is present in the schema. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the page must be owned, but does not explain the page_id format or where to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ("View") and names the exact metrics returned, clearly distinguishing this stats-fetching tool from siblings like list_pages or update_page. It also scopes the resource with "for a page you own."

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 implies usage through the ownership constraint and API key requirement, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for checking page performance rather than listing or mutating pages.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first), the fields returned, and the API-key prerequisite, but is silent on pagination, result limits, and rate limits — meaningful gaps for a list operation.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the ordering and return fields, then the auth prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, ordering, returned fields, and the auth requirement. Only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object, so no compensation is needed.

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 with scope ('List the pages in this account') and even enumerates the returned fields (URLs, view counts, expiry). It contrasts naturally with siblings like get_page_stats and delete_page, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a read of all pages in the account. The ordering hint ('newest first') and the prerequisite ('Requires an API key') give partial context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings such as get_page_stats.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful traits: pages are public to anyone with the link, and HTML is sanitized (no scripts, forms, iframes; inline styles and <style> allowed). It omits reversibility/deletion and any auth or rate-limit context, but the key side effects are covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, then content formats and visibility. No filler; every sentence adds information the 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that the URL is returned to show the user. Combined with schema-documented expiry/theme/slug options and the disclosed visibility and sanitization rules, it is nearly complete; only lifecycle (deletion/expiry behavior in prose) is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: GFM specifics for Markdown content and the sanitization contract for HTML format. It does not restate the schema, it clarifies the content/format semantics.

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 ('Publish a new web page') plus the immediate outcome ('get its public URL'). The word 'new' distinguishes it from the sibling update_page, so an agent can route creation vs. modification without opening 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?

Usage is implied by 'new web page' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. 'use update_page to change an existing page'). The agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitted fields are preserved (partial update) and that an API key is required with guest pages excluded. However, it does not say whether edits are reversible, how content/format interact, or what happens to expiry when unset, leaving meaningful mutation risk undocumented.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the partial-update rule, then the auth constraint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials: what can be changed, partial-update behavior, and the auth requirement. Gaps remain around the format parameter and expiry semantics, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It names five updatable fields (title, content, theme, byline, expiry) that map to the properties, adding context the schema lacks. It still omits the 'format' parameter and doesn't clarify that 'expiry' means expires_in_hours, but coverage is substantially improved.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('page you own') plus the mutable fields (title, content, theme, byline, expiry), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like publish_page or delete_page, but the 'replace fields of an existing page' framing is unambiguous.

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?

Provides useful prerequisites — partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are kept') and the API key requirement with the guest-page exclusion — but gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., when to update vs republish via publish_page). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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