Compose page

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

The description discloses that the tool persists by default and requires write permission, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-destructive and non-open-world). It does not contradict annotations. More detail on side effects (e.g., whether existing content is overwritten) would push this to 5.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core purpose and a key behavioral detail, while the second adds the permission requirement. Ideal front-loading.

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 description does not mention return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema. It covers the main action and a prerequisite but is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already explain 'intake' briefly and 'persist' with its default. The 'idOrSlug' parameter remains undocumented. Since coverage is moderate, the description does not compensate further.

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 action ('compose'), the resource ('landing-page block tree for an existing page'), and a key detail ('persists by default'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_page' (read) and 'publish_page' (publish) by explicitly using a different verb.

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 mentions the required permission ('pages:write') and the default persistence behavior, providing some context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, leaving usage boundaries implied rather than stated.

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