create_update_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states that the candidate is 'persisted'. It omits behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the existing page, permissions required, or side effects.

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, which is concise but insufficiently structured. It communicates the basic purpose but lacks critical details, making it under-specified rather than elegantly succinct.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what an 'update Candidate' is, how to use the parameters, or what the output schema provides.

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% and the tool description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. Only 'page' and 'title' are mentioned but not explained; other parameters like 'source', 'instruction', etc. are completely undocumented.

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 uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'persisted update Candidate for an existing formal page', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling 'apply_candidate' by implying creation vs application, but not explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_candidate' or 'compile_page'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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