Split a page at headings

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

Annotations only indicate destructive behavior and non-readonly, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: markup is preserved, content before the first heading becomes its own page, new pages appear right behind the source, and the source is kept unless deleteOriginal is true. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds meaningful behavioral details in a logical order.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, ordering, markup preservation, and deletion semantics. It is slightly reliant on understanding the 'bridge' concept and does not explain naming or return behavior, but those are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds a bit of context around deleteOriginal and the heading-based split, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: split a large text page into one page per section at headings. It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like journal-delete-page or journal-add-page, though it does not explicitly name an 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a text page is large and divided by headings, and when the split should happen inside Foundry. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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