create_landing_page

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false are consistent with a creation tool. The description adds further transparency: the page is created unpublished, status will be 'unpublished', URL null until published, and tracking defaults (true). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, error info, parameter details, and returns. It is comprehensive but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly but still efficient.

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 9 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers creation flow, lifecycle (draft->publish), dependencies on template_id and list_id, optional store linkage, and expects return fields (id, status, url). No gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args section: name (internal name), title (browser tab), list_id (audience ID, with source), template_id (with source), store_id (optional, with source), description (optional), tracking_opens and tracking_clicks (defaults). It adds meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new landing page in draft status from a template, optionally linked to a store.' It clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (landing page), and key constraints (draft, from template, optional store link). It distinguishes from siblings like update_landing_page and publish_landing_page.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use update_landing_page to edit settings or publish_landing_page to make it live' and 'Use list_landing_pages or get_landing_page to inspect existing pages.' It also mentions error conditions (400 for invalid template_id or list_id), helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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