createPage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new page' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., triggering workflows), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the semantics of key parameters like 'properties'. For a creation tool in a content management system, more context about success/failure outcomes and parameter usage is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about parameters beyond what the schema structure implies. It doesn't explain what 'parentPath', 'template', 'properties', etc., mean in the context of AEM page creation, their formats, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new page in AEM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deletePage' or 'listPages' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'createComponent' or 'createVersion', which are also creation tools in the same system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent path or template), exclusions (e.g., when not to create pages), or comparisons to siblings like 'bulkUpdateComponents' or 'uploadAsset' for related operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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