create_page

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

With no annotations, the description must supply all behavioral transparency. The only disclosed behavior is the preference for SharePoint REST by default, which is a useful hint about the preferApi parameter. However, it does not explain what happens on creation (e.g., location, draft status, return values) or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. The API preference clause is brief and adds relevant technical context. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—a nested `definition` object, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of the definition structure, site context requirements, or expected result. An agent would be left guessing the format of the required parameter, making the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'preferring SharePoint REST by default' adds meaning to the preferApi parameter by clarifying its default behavior. However, the required `definition` object is not described at all—no hints about its shape, required fields, or how it defines a modern page.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a modern page'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page, publish_page, and preview_page_layout_update, which handle different operations. The qualifier 'modern' adds specificity beyond a generic page creation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any recommended contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools such as create_list or apply_page_layout_update. The API preference clause is a technical detail, not a usage guideline.

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