create_page

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the standalone-vs-row semantic and that parent_id is ignored when parent_type is 'workspace', which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about required permissions/auth, whether creation is reversible, or rate limits for a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loads the core definition and the routing rule, then uses tight Args/Returns headings. Every line carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still sketches the return (ID and URL). For a 5-param mutating tool with zero annotations, the main gap is the absence of permission/authorization context.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates all five params including the enum-like values for parent_type ('page_id' or 'workspace') and the conditional ignore rule for parent_id. 'properties: Optional additional properties' remains vague, which keeps this below 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a standalone page') and immediately distinguishes it from the database-row case, naming the sibling create_database_row. An agent can separate this from create_database_row and create_database without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to create_database_row for the contrasting case, which is the most likely confusion among siblings. It does not cover other adjacent cases (e.g. append_markdown / append_blocks for adding to an existing page), so usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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