Create Visualforce Page

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful context by stating the page is 'deployed immediately and accessible at /apex/PageName' and that content must include an <apex:page> tag. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not reveal potential conflict behavior (e.g., what happens if the page already exists) or permissions needed, which keeps it just below a perfect score.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without sacrificing key details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core creation process and the three required inputs, but it does not explain the return value or success response. It also omits any mention of potential errors (e.g., duplicate page name) or permission requirements. The idempotency annotation partially covers re-running behavior, but a bit more context about what the tool returns would make it more complete.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 fields, so the description does not need to carry the burden. The description highlights the three required parameters and groups optional ones (controller, extensions, header/sidebar), but this mostly reiterates schema information. It adds slight value by clarifying that 'content' must include an <apex:page> tag, which the schema also states, so the added value is marginal.

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 the action ('Creates') and the specific resource ('Visualforce page'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_visualforce_component and sf_create_visualforce_email_template by the resource type. It also specifies the method ('via the Metadata API'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when creating a Visualforce page) and lists required and optional inputs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it over related tools. There is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for components or email templates), but that is inferable from the name and siblings.

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