add_connected_page

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 only states the action ('Add a page') without mentioning permissions required, whether this is a write operation, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a critical gap in transparency.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the basic understanding of the tool's intent.

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 (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context. While an output schema exists (which might help with return values), the description doesn't compensate for the other gaps, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'your website' and 'link', which loosely relate to 'site_url' and 'connected_url', but it doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 states the action ('Add a page') and the resource type ('page that has a link to your website'), but it's vague about what exactly is being added. It doesn't specify whether this creates a new page in a CMS, adds a page to a list, or registers a page in a tracking system. Compared to siblings like 'add_site' or 'add_blocked_url', the purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity about the domain context.

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. With siblings like 'add_site', 'add_page_preview_block', 'get_connected_pages', and 'submit_url', there's no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or distinctions. This leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context for this operation.

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