unmanned_create_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: duplicate refusal, 409 label_exists collisions, did_you_mean suggestions, and the side effect that nonexistent [[name]] links become stub ids in links.created. The vague 'tier 1 to override' phrase is the only minor opacity, but the core behaviors are clearly disclosed.

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 main action and primary exclusion are front-loaded, and the workflow and confirm details are all behavior-relevant. The description is longer than a minimal blurb, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity and absent annotations.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, duplicate handling, the recommended hub-first workflow, the 409 failure mode, and confirm semantics. The only real completeness gaps are the unexplained optional note parameter and the undefined 'tier 1' reference.

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 add meaning to parameters. It effectively explains label as the unique page name, body_md as the prose containing [[links]], and confirm=true as the override for did_you_mean suggestions. However, the optional note parameter is never described, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 opens with the exact operation and resource: 'Create a NEW page.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from unmanned_revise_page by stating that duplicate names should be revised instead, so an agent can identify which sibling tool to select.

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?

It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Refuses if the name already exists... revise that page instead'), prescribes a hub-first workflow to avoid 409 collisions, and defines how to handle did_you_mean suggestions with confirm=true. This is precise decision-making guidance.

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