create_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses genuine traits: the permalink maps to the public URL path, must be unique, and has reserved values that cause rejection. It is silent on permissions/auth requirements, whether the page is immediately live, and what a failed creation returns.

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 tight sentences: the operation first, then the only non-obvious constraint (permalink behavior and reserved values). No filler, no repetition of the name, and the most failure-prone rule is placed adjacent to the action statement.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only permalink semantics. It omits auth/permission needs, the default archival/publish state, and any indication of what the caller receives on success, leaving notable gaps for an agent invoking a write operation.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description meaningfully elaborates only one of ten parameters (permalink), adding the reserved-path rule that the schema does not state; the other nine parameters, including required 'name', receive no extra interpretation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a page'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from structurally similar siblings such as create_post, create_component, or create_redirect, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is specifically for pages.

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 reserved-path rule ('shop, post, events, donate are rejected') implicitly tells the agent when a permalink choice will fail, which is useful constraint guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus its siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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