bricks_build_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a backup is automatically created and cannot be skipped, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like idempotency or failure modes.

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 moderately concise, with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by behavioral disclosure and usage guidelines. While it contains multiple sentences, each adds value without repetition.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main points but omits return value details and error conditions. It could be more complete with specification of what the response contains.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'section presets' and 'raw elements' but these are already in the schema descriptions.

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 it builds a complete page from section presets and/or raw elements. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Build...page') and distinguishes from similar tools like bricks_instantiate_section or bricks_patch_page by emphasizing 'complete page' and 'single request'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: the THEME-FIRST directive tells agents to call bricks_get_theme_styles and bricks_list_global_classes before generating raw elements. It also specifies preferences for buttons and links, clearly indicating when to use alternative approaches.

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