create-onenote-page

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

Annotations already signal this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral detail by warning that the body must be a full HTML document and that partial HTML or plain text 'fails silently or creates malformed pages.' This goes beyond the annotations and is critical for correct invocation.

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 somewhat wordy and repeats 'default notebook' multiple times, making it less concise than it could be. It does have a logical structure: main purpose, section targeting, notebook limitations, then a tip. But some sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., page details, URLs). It does not. It also omits mention of the confirm parameter, which might be required given the destructiveHint annotation. For a complex operation with nested objects and a write/possible-destructive flag, the description is insufficiently 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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds meaningful context by detailing the sectionName query parameter (which is not present in the schema) and emphasizing that the body must be a full HTML document. However, the sectionName parameter isn't exposed in the schema, which could confuse agents about how to set it. The HTML tip is genuinely useful beyond the schema's 'content' field description.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new OneNote page') and the resource ('in the default section of the default notebook'). It also mentions the sectionName parameter and the limitation to the default notebook, which helps distinguish it from related tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'create-onenote-section-page', leaving some ambiguity for an agent to choose between 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: only for the current user's default notebook, and how to target different sections via the sectionName parameter. It also hints that other notebooks require a different approach ('you can create pages in a specified section'). However, it does not name the alternative tool or enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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