create_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether the new page becomes active), error conditions (e.g., what if no document is open), or return behavior. As a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no verbosity or redundancy; it earns its place entirely.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits explicit prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open) and what happens on success or failure. Given the low complexity, this gap is notable but not severe.

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?

The parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema ('Name for the new page'), yielding 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 action ('Add a new page') and a specific resource ('to the active Visio document'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_shape (adds shapes) and get_pages (reads pages). The active-document qualifier adds useful context.

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 implies the tool operates on an active Visio document, hinting at a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_document for new files, add_shape for shapes). No exclusionary guidance or explicit 'use when' conditions are given.

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