pages_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a document mutation but says nothing about side effects, whether the current view is switched (that is only in the schema's switchNow), permissions required, or what the result looks like.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is largely promotional ('Ideal for...') and does not earn its place by helping an agent decide or invoke, so it dilutes the conciseness.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral context entirely (side effects, view switching, cloning semantics). The parameter schema is complete, but the definition leaves the agent without the operational context this tool type needs.

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 six parameters (title, width, height, bgColor, switchNow, copyCurrent) are already documented with defaults and examples. The description adds nothing 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 clear verb+resource: 'Adds a new page to the document.' This distinguishes it from siblings like pages_switch, pages_duplicate, and pages_delete by function. However, it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 second sentence ('Ideal for designing multi-page catalogs, product lookbooks...') is marketing-oriented use-case color rather than actionable when-to-use guidance. It gives no condition for choosing pages_add over canvas_create_new or pages_duplicate, and no prerequisites.

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