add_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation. It doesn't disclose permission requirements, what happens on a slug collision (error vs. overwrite), whether creation is idempotent, or any side effects on the page tree. Only the 'parent_id empty for root' hint adds meaningful context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args block and a brief Returns note. It is appropriately sized for 7 parameters, though the Args entries are somewhat telegraphic and the Returns line is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the definition documents inputs adequately and an output schema covers return values. However it leaves behavioral gaps around error handling, slug uniqueness, and permissions that an agent would want before invoking a create operation.

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 document all parameters, and it largely does: title, slug, parent_id (with the root-default rule), kind (page/section), content (Markdown), tags, and properties are each explained. It adds real meaning beyond bare schema types, though it omits slug uniqueness/format constraints and the shape of structured properties.

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 a page or section, optionally with content and metadata.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutations like edit_page, append_to_page, and update_page_tags. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the create-vs-modify distinction is self-evident.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description never explains when to prefer add_page over append_to_page, edit_page, or ensure_path, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the parent must already exist or how it relates to suggest_slug/lookup_path. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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