document_pages

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It does add genuine context beyond the annotation — optimistic-concurrency via "current document revision" and stable-ID addressing — but never says which of the five actions actually destroys data (delete), nor what "safely" guarantees.

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 filler, with the operation scope front-loaded and the mutation precondition second. The only soft spot is the vague adverb "safely," which costs a word without adding testable 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a tool with five actions, nested page/patch objects, and three required parameters, two sentences is far too thin. Which parameter applies to which action, and the irreversibility of delete, are not covered anywhere structured.

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% across 8 parameters, including two nested objects, so the description must compensate and mostly doesn't. It only hints at pageId/pageIds ("stable page ID") and expectedRevision ("current document revision"), leaving page, patch, action values, and workspaceId unexplained for a 5-action tool.

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 pair ("Lists or safely changes") and a concrete resource ("explicit Inkscape 1.4 pages"), plus a key qualifier: addressing is by stable page ID. That distinguishes it from ID-churn operations like document_normalize_ids, though it does not separate itself from the adjacent document_page_adjust / document_page_validate siblings.

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 one real prerequisite (mutations require the current document revision), which tells the agent to fetch a revision first. It gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, so the agent cannot tell from the description why to pick this over document_page_adjust or document_page_validate.

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