Bulk create pages

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

Annotations are all false and provide no behavioral detail. The description adds crucial behavior: atomicity (all succeed or all fail), the 500-page limit, explicit structure requirement, and token-scoped space behavior. This goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, alternative tool, and space token guidance. No fluff or 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?

For a bulk creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: limit, atomicity, structure, alternative workflow, and token auth behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the structure ('titles, slugs, parent_page_id') and the space token behavior ('With a space-scoped token, omit space'). That extra context justifies a 4.

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?

Description opens with 'Create up to 500 pages in one atomic call' – a specific verb, resource, and capability. It also distinguishes itself from import_markdown, so it's clear what this tool does vs siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternative: 'To import a folder of Markdown files and derive the hierarchy from file paths, use import_markdown instead.' Also provides context about space-scoped tokens and omitting 'space'.

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