add_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Add a new page' implying mutation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., shift of existing content), whether permissions are needed, or that the document is modified in place. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details for full usability.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (e.g., the new page index), prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open), or the behavior when parameters are omitted (default position=end). The description is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage (pageIndex and masterPage have schema descriptions, but position does not). The tool description adds no clarification for the position parameter (before/after/end meaning relative to pageIndex), nor does it explain the relationship between parameters. The schema's existing descriptions are clear for the covered parameters, but the missing position description is a gap that the description should have filled.

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 'Add a new page to the document' clearly states the action (add) and resource (page), distinguishing it from tools like delete_page, duplicate_page, and navigate_to_page. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., to the active document) or contrast with adding other elements like layers or text frames, which are among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_page or navigate_to_page. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open) or conditions that make this tool appropriate.

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