Create Page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that Markdown is converted to HTML, HTML is sent directly (wrapped if fragment), and attachments are referenced via name:<name> URIs. It also mentions path traversal rejection for attachments, which is a useful behavioral constraint. It doesn't mention auth requirements or what happens on failure, but for a create tool the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key format and attachment details. Every clause earns its place. The attachment reference syntax is compactly included without bloating the description.

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 create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it creates, where, in what formats, and how attachments work. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists and the schema covers parameters. It could mention auth requirements or idempotency, but those are less critical for 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between content and attachments (name:<name> URIs) and the format conversion behavior. It doesn't repeat parameter details but adds cross-parameter semantics that the schema doesn't fully convey.

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 a specific verb ('Creates'), a resource ('a new OneNote page'), and the target location ('in the given section'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning Markdown/HTML support and attachments, which are unique to page creation. This clearly differentiates it from update_page, delete_page, and read_page.

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 implies when to use it: when creating a page in a section. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of update_page' or list alternatives, but the context is clear. It also gives format guidance (Markdown default, HTML option) and attachment usage, which helps the agent decide. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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