sb_page_open

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds workflow context (it is a prerequisite that returns an outline and can target a form's field document), but the phrase 'open a page for editing' sits in mild tension with a read-only hint and could suggest a state change or lock that the annotation denies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, with no filler. The closing fragment 'fields, specials.formRules on its root' is terse to the point of being cryptic but does not waste space.

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 prerequisite tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: it returns an outline, must precede the edit tools, and offers two ways to identify the target. The remaining gap is the undocumented site_id and the exact shape of the returned outline.

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 explains page_id (find via sb_api_find) and form_id (its field document, fields, specials.formRules on its root), but site_id is left entirely unexplained despite having no schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open a page for editing and return its outline'), so the core action is unambiguous. It routes to sb_api_find and names edit-related siblings, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from sb_outline or sb_node_read, which also surface page content.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition ('Call before any sb_add / sb_set / sb_move / sb_remove') and tells the agent how to obtain the needed id via sb_api_find 'list pages'. It also covers an alternative entry path (form_id edits that form's field document), though it never states when this tool should not be used.

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