create_page

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating that the page is created as a draft by default and by constraining allowed content to raw HTML or plain text, with no Markdown or image upload. This gives the agent practical behavioral expectations that annotations like readOnlyHint and openWorldHint do not convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the content-rule constraint is efficiently communicated by referencing create_post rather than repeating a long list.

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?

The output schema covers return expectations, and the description covers the most important behavioral constraint: draft-by-default and content format rules. It does not explain where blog_id comes from or explicitly address the page-vs-post decision, but these are reasonably inferrable from the resource type and sibling tool names.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for sparse parameter documentation. It adds meaningful guidance for content_format by forbidding Markdown and image upload, and it reinforces the draft parameter's default behavior. However, blog_id is left unexplained, and there is no explicit mapping of the described content rules to the actual parameter names.

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 operation with 'Create a static page' and adds the key behavior that it creates a DRAFT by default. It does not explicitly distinguish create_page from the sibling create_post beyond the phrase 'static page' and a shared-content-rules reference, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use case is implied by 'Create a static page,' and the draft-default behavior gives some context. However, the description never states when to choose create_page over create_post or other sibling tools, and the reference to create_post is only about content rules, not tool selection.

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