generate_side_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by disclosing async execution, returned fields (`operationId`, `pollUrl`, `sidePageId`), sync fallback for comparison briefs, and polling error states. It also notes that freeform mode 'now writes real section-level content... not just metadata', adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: endpoint identity, return shape, mode selection, and polling behavior. It uses a structured 'Two body modes' list to remain scannable despite the complexity, with no filler or redundant information.

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 has 11 parameters, async behavior, no output schema, and multiple generation modes, the description covers all critical aspects: return object, sync/async distinction, polling state values, section-level content generation, and field combinations. An agent has enough information to invoke and monitor the operation 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds important mode-based semantics: freeform uses `key`+`prompt` with optional fields, brief uses `key`+`brief` with optional `briefId`/`roadmapItemId`, and `sidePageType` defaults to 'landing' with comparison requiring a persisted briefId. This grouping helps the agent choose correct parameter combinations.

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 definition clearly states that the tool 'AI-generates a side page under a parent landing page' and identifies it as the generator endpoint 'POST /side-pages/generate', explicitly noting it is 'NOT a row creator'. This scope and differentiation from editable/row-manipulation tools is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage modes ('freeform' vs 'brief') with parameter bundles, and instructs the agent to poll `get_job` with `operationId` until terminal states. It explains when comparison-type briefs run synchronously, but does not name alternative sibling tools like `seo_generate_side_page` or `create_comparison_page`, so exclusions are only partially addressed.

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