Creează sau modifică o pagină ori un articol

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains draft creation, immediate publication on update if already published, automatic versioning, and HTML filtering with the 'curatari' response field. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds meaningful operational detail. No fluff or repetition—only essential behavioral information is present.

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 12 parameters and complex conditional logic (some fields only for pages/articles), the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: creation as draft, update semantics, immediate publication, versioning, and HTML filtering response. The schema handles parameter details and required fields at creation, so the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't mention error conditions or output format, but the schema already provides parameter specifics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general instruction to send only changed fields but does not elaborate on any specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema already fully documents each parameter, the description provides marginal added value here.

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 states it creates an element as a draft or modifies it, and the title specifies pages or articles. It conveys the core create/update action for two entity types. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools (like 'publica' or 'sterge') to differentiate itself, so it falls slightly short of the highest bar.

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 gives useful usage tips: when modifying, send only changed fields; if the element is published, changes appear immediately; previous version is auto-saved. But it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'publica' or 'restaureaza', leaving that inference to the agent.

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