create-onenote-section-page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: partial HTML fails silently, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, no other behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, rate limits) is disclosed.

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 with the primary purpose front-loaded and the critical tip as a secondary note. Efficient and well-structured, though the tip emoji is slightly informal but does not harm clarity.

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 most important caveat (full HTML requirement) and the purpose. Given the schema provides required parameters and confirm gate details, the description is minimally sufficient, but it does not explain the relationship between the body object schema and the HTML requirement, leaving ambiguity for a tool with nested object complexity.

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 schema describes the body parameter as an object with page properties, but the description's tip insists body must be a full HTML document—a critical but potentially contradictory clarification. This adds value beyond the schema's 80% coverage, yet the mismatch between schema type and description content may confuse agents.

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 'Create a new page in the specified section', identifying the verb, resource, and location. It distinguishes from sibling create-onenote-page by the section qualifier, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like create-onenote-page. The only usage hint is the HTML format tip, which addresses parameter formatting rather than tool selection.

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