add_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important behavior—returning the internal pageName for subsequent visual addition—which is valuable. Yet it omits other behavioral aspects such as side effects, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate display names.

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, front-loaded with the action. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant information. This is an model of conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the session requirement or the optional width/height parameters, and leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites. The return value note is helpful but insufficient for a complete picture.

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 only 25% (only displayName has a description). The description adds no parameter information; it doesn't clarify reportSessionId, width, or height. It only references an output value, not inputs. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a report page.' It also mentions the return value (internal pageName), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling page-creation tools like clone_page or create_pbir_page, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 phrase 'use that for adding visuals' implies a follow-up workflow, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions or exclusions. Thus, guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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