maket_page

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses concrete behaviors: add sets the active page, remove is refused if it's the last page, reorder adjusts activePage, and list marks active with ●. It also delegates charte enforcement to maket_html. It does not mention return values or all edge cases, but is substantially transparent.

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 well-structured: a short 'When to use' intro, a bulleted action list, and a note about charte. It front-loads the purpose and avoids superfluous language, with each sentence contributing meaningful guidance.

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 tool with five operations and seven parameters, the description covers the operations' effects, exclusions, and cross-tool coordination with maket_html. It omits explicit return-value details for non-list actions, but the actions are straightforward and the core behavior is adequately described.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description's action table clarifies which parameters apply to each action, which the schema does not specify per-action (e.g., add requires name and html; reorder requires from and to). This adds practical parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as managing page structure within a document, enumerates five specific actions (add, remove, rename, reorder, list), and explicitly contrasts with maket_html for content, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 begins with an explicit 'When to use' line, states that for page content one should use maket_html instead, and provides a follow-up for charte compliance, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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