ghost_create_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as return value, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The note about tags adds some context but is insufficient for a creation tool with 27 parameters.

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 concise (one sentence plus a note) but overly minimal. It is not wasteful, but it omits important details that could be included without becoming verbose.

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 high parameter count (27), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter effects, or selection criteria among siblings.

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 low (22%), and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not explain the many optional parameters, only reiterating the tags note already present in the schema. The required parameters (title, html) are not described further.

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 verb ('creates') and resource ('new page in Ghost CMS'). It also distinguishes pages from posts by noting that tags are not typically used, which helps differentiate from the sibling tool ghost_create_post.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghost_create_post or ghost_create_tag. It only implies a distinction regarding tags, but no clear usage context or exclusions are given.

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