web_add_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the result is a 'minimal valid document' — a genuinely useful scaffold hint. It omits what happens on path collision, whether the page persists in a checkpoint/timeline, and the side effects of a mutation. Too thin for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's mutation semantics and lack of annotations.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the working-copy concept, collision/overwrite behavior, and expected_rev staleness at least in prose. None of this is present, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 100%, so all three parameters (path, title, expected_rev) are already documented in the schema, including the stale-revision refusal behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Add), resource (HTML page), and scope (working copy), plus a distinguishing detail about how the page is created. It clearly separates itself from read-oriented siblings like web_read/web_pages, but does not explicitly reference any sibling by name.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer that this is for creating a brand-new page as opposed to manipulating an existing one via web_insert_section or web_set_text. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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