conf_create_page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly known. The description adds only the body-format requirement and says nothing about permissions required, what happens if the title already exists, how parentId affects placement, or what is returned (page id), which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 clause with no wasted words, and the most failure-prone constraint (body must be storage XHTML) is placed up front. The terseness is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it scores well here but poorly on completeness.

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 non-idempotent, destructive create operation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description says far too little. An agent still cannot tell what the call returns or how parentId and spaceKey should be formed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of all four parameters and does not. It clarifies the format of body only; spaceKey (key vs numeric id), title, and especially the optional parentId (omitting it presumably creates a top-level page) are entirely undocumented.

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 page"), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling conf_update_page and conf_delete_page. It does not explicitly name how it differs from those siblings, but the create/update/delete split is self-evident from the verb.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus conf_update_page, nor any prerequisite context (edit permission on the target space, behavior on duplicate titles). The only guidance is a body-format constraint, which is a usage constraint but not when-to-use routing.

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