Pages Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, non-idempotent, and openWorld, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful operational context — the HTTP endpoint and required scope write_content — but says nothing about publish defaults, slug/handle collisions, or failure modes for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Four short lines with the core action front-loaded and no filler prose. The HTTP method/path and API version lines are slightly redundant with the tool name but are legitimately useful for debugging and version pinning.

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 a nested per-language i18n object, the description does not clarify required sub-fields, whether content must be HTML, or what publish defaults to. The rich schema partially compensates and there is no output schema to explain, but the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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% and the i18n, publish, and additional_fields parameters are all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a page") that, combined with the tool name, unambiguously separates it from siblings like pages_update, pages_get, and pages_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings or scope boundaries, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to create a page versus alternatives, no prerequisites about i18n content requirements, and no note on how this relates to pages_update or blog posts. The only actionable context is the required OAuth scope (write_content), which is a prerequisite but not usage routing.

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