create_status_page_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: a check group is rendered as one aggregated component that never lists its members, and the resource is publicly displayed. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether duplicate pins are prevented, whether the section must already exist, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Pin a check — or a whole check group... to a status-page section') and uses the parenthetical to add a useful behavioral distinction without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 create tool with 7 fully documented parameters but no output schema, the description conveys the core action, public visibility, and aggregation behavior. It doesn't mention preconditions like section existence, but the schema and sibling tools (create_status_page_section, update_status_page_resource) fill most of that gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters and the mutual exclusivity of checkUid/checkGroupUid. The description adds slight nuance ('never lists its members') but largely mirrors what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pin') and names the exact resource and target: a check or check group attached to a status-page section as a publicly-displayed resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_status_page_section, list_status_page_resources, and update_status_page_resource.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing check or group should appear publicly on a status-page section. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the action and target are specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies versus section creation or resource list/update tools.

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