manage_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: it discloses that deleting a page destroys its contained objects and that the last page of a board is undeletable. It also pre-describes the list return shape (number, name, object count). It does not say whether renames/deletes are reversible or what happens if the page name is ambiguous.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation set, then routed to the sibling, then constraints. No filler and nothing buried at the end that an agent needs up front.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, a hard constraint, required per-action inputs, and the list return shape — enough to invoke it safely. Minor gaps remain around ambiguity resolution and whether rename/delete return anything.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description restates the page selector (number from 1, or name) and rename's name requirement, largely duplicating schema text rather than adding new semantics such as name-resolution rules or collision handling.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource: 'Lists, renames or deletes pages', and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that creates them ('add_page creates them'). An agent can tell exactly what operations this tool bundles and which sibling handles creation.

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?

Routes the creation case to add_page explicitly and states which parameters each action requires ('rename and delete need page... rename also needs name'), so action selection is clear. What's missing is guidance on when to prefer page-by-number vs page-by-name, or when to use this versus inspection tools like describe_board.

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