document_pages

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the concurrency requirement ('mutations require the current document revision') and the notion of 'stable page ID' (implying identity stability). It also highlights that changes are made 'safely' (likely referring to revision checks), which contextualizes the destructive operations. The annotation only flags destructiveness; the description provides operational context.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the key safety constraint. There is zero redundancy. It earns its place by giving essential context without elaboration, which is an ideal length for such a broad tool.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the 'action' enum values, how to specify a page (via 'page' vs 'pageId'), the semantics of 'patch' and 'pageIds,' or how 'expectedRevision' is used. An agent would have to guess the parameter interplay; the description leaves too much to inference for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero detail about any of the 8 parameters (action, page, patch, pageId, pageIds, expectedRevision, etc.). It does not clarify which parameters are needed for which action, the expected format of 'page', or the meaning of 'expectedRevision.' The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 verbs ('Lists or safely changes') and the resource ('explicit Inkscape 1.4 pages'), and adds 'by stable page ID' to specify the targeting mechanism. It is specific enough to hint at a page-focused tool, which distinguishes it from sibling element/document tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as a contrast.

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 implies the tool is for explicit page operations and mentions a critical constraint: 'mutations require the current document revision.' This gives some guidance on when it applies, but it does not offer explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use elements_update for non-page objects') or describe scenarios for each action. The context is partially implied by the tool name and resource focus.

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