create_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose that the tool applies 'design-intelligent layout, spacing, and typography throughout', indicating autonomous design decisions. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new page or modifies the current selection, whether it overwrites existing content) and any safety-related behavior.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core assertion is front-loaded, and the design-intelligence qualifier is placed naturally. The description earns its length.

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?

For a complex tool with 5 parameters including a nested 'content' object and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level purpose but leaves gaps. An agent still needs to infer what 'multiple sections' means concretely, how the tool uses the provided content, and what the resulting output will be—though the schema partially compensates for parameter understanding.

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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents the fields, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('complete page design with multiple sections'), which is clear and goes beyond the tool name 'create_page'. It implies a higher-level composite operation than siblings like create_frame or create_section, though it doesn't explicitly name a distinguishable alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_section, create_new_page, or manual frame composition. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so the agent is left to infer when this high-level page generator is appropriate.

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