Create Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so mutation is implied. The description adds modest context: sortOrder controls navigation order, and layout is a separate concern. It doesn't disclose behavior around duplicates (e.g., what happens if the slug already exists), whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. Given annotations carry the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The first states the core action, the second explains the sortOrder parameter and correctly redirects layout concerns to sibling tools. Slightly terse but efficient 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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects, the tool needs more support than it receives. The visibility object and dryRun parameter are undocumented. The description gives good pointer context for sortOrder and layout separation, but for a create operation with 3 required params and a complex visibility object, there's meaningful undocumented surface area. No output schema means the return format is also undisclosed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains sortOrder's role (page order in navigation), which is genuinely useful semantic info not in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'visibility' nested object parameter or the 'dryRun' flag, which remain undocumented given zero schema coverage. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 a page in a portal.' The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly name the sibling differentiation (kilango_update_page vs this create operation), the action itself is clear enough to distinguish from the listed sibling tools.

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 provides useful context that layout is handled separately via kilango_save_page_layout / kilango_add_content_block, which prevents the agent from expecting layout setup here. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with update_page vs create scenarios. It names alternative tools for a follow-up step but not as exclusions.

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