Create Status Page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the page is created empty and that subsequent updates are needed, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or idempotency. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but could add more behavioral context like whether creation is idempotent or if there are limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second provides follow-up guidance and slug constraints. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the creation action, the need for follow-up updates, and slug constraints. It could mention what the response contains, but the output schema likely covers that. Slight gap on any prerequisites or side effects, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the slug format constraint (lowercase letters, digits, dashes) which is also in the schema pattern, so it adds minimal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a new empty status page with title and slug, and explicitly notes it is empty, distinguishing it from updateStatusPage which sets additional properties. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly instructs to call updateStatusPage after creation to set description, theme, groups, and monitors, providing clear sequential guidance and distinguishing from the sibling tool. It also specifies slug format constraints, which is useful for correct usage.

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