coding_build_page

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional information about side effects, what the action modifies, or what triggers a destructive outcome. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher, which is about mechanics, not 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?

The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences and a simple argument list. No unnecessary words or redundancy; it gets straight to the point.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated in context), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential input parameters and the action's routing. However, it lacks any explanation of what 'build_page' does in practice, which could affect an agent's decision to use it.

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?

Both parameters (message and inputs) are described with meaningful explanations: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what each parameter should contain, though it does not detail the expected JSON structure.

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 it runs the 'coding domain agent action build_page', which identifies the specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'building a page' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function compared to similar page-related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_builder_create or coding_write_code. It only states what it does without any contextual or selection criteria.

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