Create Semantic Page

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of intent: it does not say what happens when pageType is omitted, whether defaults seed sections, whether a parent is required, or how it resolves workspace scope. For a non-idempotent write with an open-world hint, that is a real gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, verb and resource first. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 and the schema documents all five optional parameters, so return values and inputs need not be re-explained. But with zero required parameters and a non-idempotent write, the description should clarify defaults, override behavior, and workspace resolution; it leaves those to inference.

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 every parameter is documented in structured fields and baseline 3 applies. The description's phrases 'section structure' and 'native block composition' loosely gesture at sections and pageType but add no format, precedence, or interaction detail (e.g., how explicit sections override pageType defaults) beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create an AFFiNE-native page') and adds a distinguishing qualifier about section structure and native block composition, which separates it from a plain doc-creation tool. It never names the sibling it is contrasted with (create_doc, instantiate_template_native), so the differentiation stays implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many nearby creation tools (create_doc, create_doc_from_markdown, instantiate_template_native, append_semantic_section). The agent must infer that this is the structured-page path versus the markdown or template path.

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