create_js_objects

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

As no annotations exist, the description carries the full transparency burden. It effectively discloses that function_names can be auto-parsed from body if omitted, and page_id defaults to the current page. However, it does not mention mutation or potential overwrites, though the creation intent is clear.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and efficiently explains parameters inline. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the core functionality (creating objects with flexible parameters), it lacks details on return values (e.g., IDs of created objects) and error conditions (e.g., invalid body). Given no output schema, this information would improve completeness.

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 input schema only specifies an array of objects with no property constraints (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by detailing the expected entry fields (name, body, optional function_names, optional page_id) and their semantics (body is full source, auto-parsing behavior). This provides essential meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about required sub-fields.

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 tool creates multiple JS objects in one call, using the verb 'create' and resource 'JS objects'. It differentiates from siblings like update_js_objects, delete_js_objects, and list_js_objects, making its unique purpose evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_js_objects or patch_js_objects. The description focuses on parameter format but omits context about choosing creation over modification.

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