stub.page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the edit_key is shown exactly once, cannot be recovered, and that losing it permanently prevents editing or deleting the page. It also explains image behavior (embedded, never hosted) and that content is Markdown, giving the agent essential side-effect and constraint knowledge.

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 description is three focused sentences with no filler. The purpose and return values are front-loaded, followed by content format details and the critical edit_key warning. 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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return values, parameter format, and the most important operational caveat (edit_key irrecoverability). An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.

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, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema. It expands the content parameter with the full Markdown feature set and image embedding behavior, while the schema already documents that the title-derived URL never changes.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a new text post'), and lists the concrete return values (slug, public URL, edit_key). This clearly distinguishes create_page from its siblings delete_page, get_page, and update_page without needing to inspect them.

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 description clearly frames this as the tool for publishing new text posts, which tells an agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say 'use update_page to modify an existing page,' but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the unique edit_key requirement, and that the slug is never reused—valuable behavioral context for a destructive 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a requirement and consequences. Every sentence adds factual value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what is required, and the permanent consequences. It lacks error-condition context and a small terminology inconsistency ('post' vs 'page'), but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 50%: edit_key has a schema description, but slug does not. The description adds that the slug is never reused, which is more behavioral than semantic, and it reinforces the edit_key requirement. However, it does not clarify what the slug itself identifies or how it should be formatted, leaving a partial gap.

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 action ('Permanently delete') and a resource ('a post'), which is clear even though the tool is named 'page' rather than 'post'. It differentiates from the siblings create_page, get_page, and update_page, leaving no doubt about the operation.

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 a key prerequisite ('Requires the edit_key') and important consequences, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the verb and sibling names, not stated directly.

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 it discloses key behavioral traits: only published posts are fetchable, and no edit_key is required (public). It does not reveal error behavior, rate limits, or response shape, but for a simple public read by slug, these are sufficient. No contradiction with annotations since none are provided.

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 terse sentences front-load the action and scope. Each sentence adds distinct information (what it fetches; auth/visibility). No filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and access, but it leaves out behavior for not-found slugs and the return payload. More importantly, the 'post' vs 'page' terminology mismatch with the tool name and sibling set undermines confidence in the resource being handled. So completeness is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding format, source, or validation details beyond the schema's 'The slug from the page URL.' Thus it meets baseline but adds no extra 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('published post by slug'), which clearly positions it as a read operation relative to sibling create_page/delete_page/update_page. However, it uses 'post' instead of 'page', conflicting with the tool name, title, and sibling naming, creating ambiguity about the exact resource.

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 phrase 'Public — no edit_key required' gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate (public read access). It does not explicitly mention when to use this versus the create/delete/update siblings, nor does it state exclusions such as unpublished pages requiring another tool. The usage guidance is implied by the get verb and sibling names, not explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the edit_key requirement and the fact that the URL stays unchanged when the title changes. It does not describe error behavior, but 'replace' implies overwriting.

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 description is two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential operation, the edit_key prerequisite, and a notable behavioral trait. However, it does not explain how to obtain or interpret slug, whether at least one of title/content must be supplied, or what happens on success or failure. Given no output schema, these gaps leave it adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that title and content are the updatable fields and that edit_key comes from create_page, but it leaves slug's role implicit. This is helpful but not complete.

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 (Replace) and identifies the target resource (an existing post/page) along with the affected fields (title and/or content). This clearly distinguishes it from create_page, delete_page, and get_page, even though it uses 'post' where the title says 'page'.

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 description states a clear prerequisite: the edit_key from create_page is required, and the resource must be an existing post. This gives useful when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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