create_page

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

The description says 'create a new page,' which implies a non-destructive action, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. The description also adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects or whether existing pages could be affected. Per the rubric, a contradiction mandates a score of 1.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the intent.

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 tool is relatively simple, but it has six parameters and no output schema. The description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., the created page ID) or any nuances like the effect of setting front_page or published. While the schema covers the parameters, the description could be more helpful by noting optional configuration or expected return behavior. It meets the minimum viability but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions (e.g., 'HTML content for the page', 'Whether to publish'). The description text itself adds no additional parameter semantics or usage examples, but since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (create) and resource (page) in a specific context (Canvas course). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_page_content, delete_page, and update_page_settings, which have different verbs or resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create_page vs edit_page_content or bulk_update_pages. It also does not mention prerequisites like required permissions or the need to specify a course_identifier beyond what the schema already states.

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