pages_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine default not present in the schema (status defaults to draft), which is real added value. However, for a mutation tool it omits auth/permission requirements, what the response contains, and whether HTML conversion has 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is appropriately sized as a sentence, though the brevity masks the under-specification addressed in other dimensions.

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?

An 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema demands substantially more than two sentences. The description leaves publish/schedule semantics, ordering with feature_image uploads, and most field meanings undocumented.

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 only 39% across 18 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not — it mentions no fields other than the implied status. Uncovered parameters like featured, og_title, twitter_title, and codeinjection_* get no explanation anywhere.

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'), which is clear and distinct from posts_create/pages_update at the resource level. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling posts_create, but the page-vs-post distinction is well established by the naming.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus posts_create, when to prefer tags/images_upload first, or what prerequisites exist. The only contextual hint is the draft default, which is about behavior rather than tool selection.

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