Configure a Pages source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the URL is 'persisted' and a browser-profile path is 'created', and importantly adds the non-destructive guarantee: 'Existing configuration is never replaced.' However, it does not mention auth prerequisites, error behavior, or return values.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key invariant. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description provides a clear overview of the operation and a notable behavioral guarantee, but it lacks usage context versus siblings and is silent on the optional 'sourceId'. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'startUrl' is an HTTPS Pages URL, but it does not explain the optional 'sourceId' parameter or its validation pattern. Thus, only half of the parameters receive semantic context.

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 uses specific verbs ("Persists", "derives", "creates") and clearly identifies the resource being configured (a Pages source) along with the concrete outcomes (origin allowlist, browser-profile path). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_pages_sources' or 'fetch_pages_content'.

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 its usage for initial configuration of a Pages source but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'validate_source_auth' or 'refresh_pages_index') or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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