create_pagebreak_position

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or how the pagebreak position affects documents. It merely restates the action without enriching the annotation-provided information.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence without any additional structure or detail does not earn its place for a tool with 3 parameters and domain-specific concepts. It borders on being a tautology of the tool name.

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 tool has no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, but the description provides no information about return values, side effects, or how the parameters interact. It lacks essential context about what a pagebreak position is and how it is used in documents, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from the schema.

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 description does not mention any of the parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, so document_id and kb_document_type are documented, but the 'pagebreak' boolean parameter has no description in the schema and none in the text. The description fails to compensate for this gap or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'pagebreak position', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update/delete/get/list. However, it does not explain what a pagebreak position is or mention document scope, which would make it fully clear.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended use case (e.g., adding pagebreaks to quotes/orders/invoices). The only implied usage is that the tool creates a pagebreak position, but there is no elaboration on the circumstances.

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