Create Ghost page drafts

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotence, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: status is always forced to draft, blocks must be 'bounded' native types, and image src values are session-scoped to upload_image. That session-scoping constraint in particular is not recoverable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and count, followed by the hard constraint and the exclusion list. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers draft forcing, batch limits, image preconditions, and unavailable features. For a tool with this much nested schema complexity, slightly more on the blocks-vs-markdown tradeoff would help, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single top-level parameter hides a very deep nested block schema. The description partially compensates by naming the two input modes (markdown vs blocks) and the 1–10 batch bound, but it explains nothing about the allowed block types, per-block fields, or field limits that an agent must actually supply. Baseline for near-zero coverage with a complex 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?

States a specific verb (Create), resource (pages), output state (drafts), batch size (1–10), and the two accepted input formats (Markdown or native Ghost blocks). This cleanly separates it from the sibling create_drafts, which targets a different content type.

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 exclusion list (tags, authors, templates, code injection, scheduling unavailable) gives strong negative guidance, and the image-src precondition tells the agent a prerequisite step. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over sibling create_drafts or upload_image sequencing details.

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