generate_landing_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the two-step process, async nature, return values, and polling with get_job until terminal states. It does not cover side effects like permissions or idempotency, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, step sequence, return format, polling instructions, and an alternative. It is compact yet information-dense with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's async, multi-step nature and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return shape, polling procedure, and error states. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail ('with the given slug') but otherwise relies on the schema, which already covers all parameters.

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 purpose: 'Create and AI-generate a new landing page for the brand.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling vibe_edit_landing_page by noting that targeted edits should use that alternative.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (creating a new page) and provides an alternative for a different case: 'For targeted edits to an existing page, prefer vibe_edit_landing_page.' This directly guides tool selection versus a key sibling.

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