create_page

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

Without annotations, the description provides good behavioral context: automatic parsing of markdown into block hierarchy, merging frontmatter with properties parameter, and preservation of code blocks. It does not cover error handling or whether existing pages are overwritten, but covers core behavior well.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. The example is instructive and concise. Every sentence adds value, and the markdown parsing details are compactly presented.

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 description covers creation and content parsing thoroughly, but lacks explanation of return values or what happens if a page with the same title exists. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, these gaps reduce completeness slightly.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that content is optional, markdown is parsed into blocks, and the 'properties' parameter merges with frontmatter. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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 'Create a new page in Logseq with properly structured blocks,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_page and delete_page by focusing on creation and block structure.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating a page) and provides details about content parsing (headings, lists, code blocks, frontmatter). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like insert_nested_block.

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