favorite_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description adds little beyond that, only implying the favorite is scoped to the authenticated user. It does not describe any additional side effects, permissions, or response behavior, but does not contradict the annotations either.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, target, and scope immediately, which is ideal for an agent scanning the tool list.

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 mutation tool with two required integer parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks any explanation of the parameters (especially collectiveId), which are not covered by the schema. It also does not mention what happens on success (e.g., no return value or confirmation), though that is minor for a favorite action.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention pageId or collectiveId at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (page identifier and collective/space identifier), the description provides no explicit guidance on their meaning or relationship, leaving an agent to infer from the tool name.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('a page as a favorite') and clarifies it's for the authenticated user. This distinguishes it from sibling unfavorite_page and other page operations, so an agent knows exactly what action this performs.

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 context is clear: use this to favorite a page for the current user. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like unfavorite_page, but the action is unambiguous and the sibling list makes the opposite operation obvious. No exclusions are stated, but none are critical here.

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