Add Page

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

The description adds a behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'The new page becomes the current active page.' Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so this extra detail helps the agent predict state changes. It does not mention other side effects, but with annotations present the added value is meaningful.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a bulleted args section, and a short example. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan for an agent.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter, and active-page effect. It could mention prerequisites like needing an initialized design project, but such context is likely implicit and the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter, and the description repeats the same information ('Name for the new page'). The example shows a concrete invocation, which adds slight value, but no additional constraints or format details are given, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Add a new page to the design project' with the specific resource (page) and verb (add). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like design_add_component by focusing on pages, and notes the active page effect.

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 usage is implied by the verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_switch_page or design_remove_page. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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