Create a page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the page starts with an 'empty root canvas' which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, whether the operation requires specific permissions, what happens if the name conflicts with an existing page, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that communicates the core purpose and the key behavioral detail (empty canvas) without any waste. Zero filler 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?

The tool is a simple 2-parameter create operation with no annotations and no output schema. For such a tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the starting state of the object created. However, it omits useful behavioral details like name conflict handling, permission requirements, and associated default page tasks. Adequate but not thorough.

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 both parameters (applicationId and name) are documented in the schema. The description adds the context that the page starts with an empty canvas, which is behavioral context rather than parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states clearly that this tool creates a page in an application with a specific behavior ('empty root canvas the editor creates'). It uses a specific verb (creates) and resource (page), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like appsmith_create_application, appsmith_create_workspace, etc. It's clear although it doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the shared 'create' prefix across several tools.

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 explains the resulting page state ('same empty root canvas the editor creates'), which gives useful context about when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like appsmith_create_application or appsmith_generate_crud_page, and provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application).

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