create_status_page

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

Despite annotations being minimal (all false), the description discloses a wealth of behavioral details: requires an API key with write scope or higher, default privacy, public pages expose monitor names, global slug uniqueness (409), cross-project id validation (400), free-tier public page quota (403), and the random unguessable slug default. It even explains the privacy implications of making a page public. This goes far beyond the annotations and is crucial for safe invocation.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary purpose and use case, then layers in key warnings (privacy, slug, quota). It could be slightly tighter, but the density of critical operational information justifies the length. No redundancy or filler.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints, error scenarios, and security considerations. The only minor missing piece is an explicit statement about the response format (e.g., returns the created page object), but this is conventional and not necessary for correct invocation. The description is otherwise complete for safe and effective use.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds significant value: for slug, it explains the regex, global uniqueness, and recommends omitting unless explicitly requested; for visibility, it elaborates on privacy risks and the one-public-page limit; for check_ids, it notes that empty is legal and that ids must belong to the project. This guidance directly affects how an agent should fill the parameters.

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's purpose: 'Create a status page — a single page showing the current status and recent history of a chosen set of monitors.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('status page'), and differentiates from siblings like update_status_page and delete_status_page by focusing on the initial creation use case. The additional context about exposing health to non-logged-in users further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Reach for this when the health of a monitor needs to be visible to someone who cannot log in to the project.' It also provides critical usage caveats: pages are private by default, the visibility parameter must be read before making public, and it suggests using list_monitors to obtain check_ids. It even hints at alternatives (update_status_page for modifications) implicitly. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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