add_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens when a page is added (e.g., impact on page numbering, layout, or spread structure), nor does it mention default behavior (e.g., adding at the end by default). The description is too vague for a mutating tool.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It fully communicates the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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 tool has 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of adding a page, common use cases, or any prerequisites (e.g., existence of a document). For a document-modifying tool, this is insufficient context for an AI agent to invoke it safely.

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 description does not mention or clarify any parameters. Schema description coverage is 50% (referencePage has a description, position has none but uses an enum). The description adds no value beyond the schema; it fails to explain the meaning of position values or the role of referencePage, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 ('Add'), the resource ('a new page'), and the scope ('to the document'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that add other elements (e.g., add_document_to_book, add_item_to_group) or manipulate pages differently (e.g., duplicate_page, move_page).

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. The description does not mention contexts where adding a page is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., an open document), or when to prefer other page-related tools like duplicate_page or move_page.

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