unmanned_split_page

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the core mechanism: pass fact ids that belong to the new page and optionally move a label. However, it does not state what happens to the original page, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or what the return value is.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no real filler. The parenthetical 'tier 1' is unexplained and not useful to an agent without domain context, and the description is slightly too thin for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, this description is only partially complete. It conveys the central split concept and the fact-selection rule, but it does not explain required parameter semantics or the side effects on the original page, meaning an agent could still construct an incorrect call.

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. It does add useful meaning for fact_ids ('that belong to the NEW page') and move_label ('optionally move a label'), but it leaves the three required parameters—entity_id, new_label, and reason—effectively unexplained in the description.

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 identifies the action: 'Pull a wrongly-fused meaning out into its own page' and frames it as the 'undo for a bad join.' This distinguishes it from the sibling page-management tools, especially merge_pages, even without naming it explicitly.

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 states when to use the tool: when a meaning was wrongly fused/merged and needs to be split into its own page. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention exclusions, but the split-vs-join context makes the intended use clear.

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