pages_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: the document is opened on screen, the text is structured with title/headings, markers are removed, save_in can be empty (only opened, not saved), and it never overwrites existing files (fails if the file exists). This is rich, specific behavioral context beyond the basic 'create' operation.

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 description is efficient and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then explains the structured format, and finally details each parameter. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the main behavior, parameter semantics, and an important edge case (no overwrite). The output schema is noted to exist, so return values are documented separately; the description provides all necessary usage 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: 'text' is defined as document content with line breaks, and 'save_in' is described as a path to a .pages file, including default behavior and failure mode. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states the tool's core function: 'Create a Pages document with this text and open it on screen.' The verb 'Create' and the resource 'Pages document' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like pages_replace and pages_append by focusing on creation rather than modification.

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 description implies the tool is for creating new Pages documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like pages_append or pages_replace. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so the usage context is only implied.

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