create-status-page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It merely states the creation of a public status page but omits details like authentication, response format, side effects, and the fact that private pages are also possible via the visibility parameter, which contradicts the 'public' claim.

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 sentence with no redundant content, earning credit for brevity. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and several nuances, so it does not achieve the higher score that complete, efficient descriptions get.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the creation process and return behavior. It does not mention what the API returns, whether checks must already exist, or the implications of different visibility settings, leaving significant 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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, but the schema adequately covers each field's meaning.

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 clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (status page), which is sufficient to distinguish from sibling tools like update-status-page and delete-status-page. However, the qualifier 'public' may mislead, since the schema includes a 'visibility' parameter supporting private pages.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update-status-page or delete-status-page. It also fails to mention prerequisites, such as the need for existing checks to attach, or how visibility works.

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