create_notebook_page

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the page ranks after existing pages, the '- ' to '* ' marker rewriting (list-deletion protection), and notably that it depends on undocumented, experimental endpoints matched against app 1.71. That fragility warning is genuinely valuable. It stops short of auth or error 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and placement, then progressively discloses behavioral quirks and dependency risk. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information; only minor tightening possible.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and full schema coverage handles parameters. The description completes the mutation picture with ordering, text transformation, and endpoint fragility. Missing only ancillary details like required permissions or rate-limit context.

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 parameters (notebook_id, title, text, section_id) are already documented. The prose only loosely restates placement ('notebook', 'section') and adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a page') plus precise placement scope ('at the end of a notebook, optionally in a section'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_notebook, update_notebook_page, and delete_notebook_page without needing to open any schema.

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 placement semantics ('at the end of a notebook, optionally in a section') imply when this tool is appropriate versus adding elsewhere, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing (e.g., update_notebook_page). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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