create_page

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but say nothing about the reuse-vs-create behavior, the plan-based page budget, or the cloud-file scope; the description supplies all three, which materially changes how an agent should call it. It still omits what happens to page contents or whether the call fails or silently reuses at the limit.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (reuse rule, budget, fallback tool, scope limit), with the core action and reuse behavior front-loaded. Slightly terse and telegraphic in places, but no filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, mutating tool whose annotations only flag destructiveness, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: budget limits, reuse behavior, fallback to get_document, and non-cloud scope. Only the semantics of the name parameter and failure behavior at the limit remain thin.

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?

There is a single parameter with zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies exact-match semantics for 'name' via the reuse rule, but never states format, uniqueness constraints, or that length is bounded to 100 characters.

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 and resource ('create a page') and adds a surprising secondary behavior ('reuse an exact matching page name'), which helps an agent distinguish it from siblings like create_node or update_page. It also disambiguates with 'Does not create a cloud file,' clarifying what 'page' means here.

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?

It gives a conditional route-away instruction: 'At the limit use existing page IDs from get_document,' which names a sibling and the condition that selects it. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment (e.g., no guidance on renaming vs. creating, or on non-Starter budgets).

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