create_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the created state (unpublished), the URL-uniqueness behavior, and the add_menu side effect on the main menu. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the workflow tip and then the core create semantics. Every sentence earns its place, though the tip and the create mechanics are slightly crammed together.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the created state, side effects, parameter meanings, and even the return shape ({page_id, view_id, url, menu_id?}). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: add_menu is explained ('also add it to the main menu') and website_id is explained ('target website, default: the current one'). The required name parameter's uniqueness behavior is implied via the URL note but not directly documented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a website page') and goes further to explain the mechanism: a view from the default page template plus the page, with a URL made unique from the name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_page_visibility and get_page_arch.

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?

Gives clear context: the page is created unpublished and must be published via set_page_visibility, and the opening tip routes the agent to find_skill/list_workflows before multi-step work. It names alternatives but doesn't state explicit when-not conditions for create_page itself.

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