create_page_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation effect and the relationship between the page type and its fields, plus a user-confirmation gate. It does not mention side effects, immutability constraints, or what happens after creation, but the core behavior is reasonably 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the essential confirmation rule is placed at the end as a direct instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema is rich and mostly self-documenting, and the description covers the key prerequisite context. It is not fully exhaustive about edge cases or return behavior, but for a creation tool with this schema detail, it is reasonably complete.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by framing the 'fields' parameter as the custom-field schema carried by pages of this type, but it does not elaborate on the remaining schema-covered parameters. This is adequate without being especially additive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a page type (template) with a custom-field schema. It also clarifies that pages of this type carry those custom fields, which distinguishes this creation tool from generic page-creation or page-type-read 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 one clear precondition: only call after the user confirms. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like update_page_type, get_page_type, or delete_page_type, nor does it say in which situations creation is preferred.

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