new_element

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) already establish that nothing is persisted, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context beyond that: exactly what is seeded (fresh id, styles for both breakpoints, specials) and exactly what is deliberately omitted (properties, runtime, empty events, per-breakpoint config) because the server fills them from factory defaults on validate and save. This tells the agent not to hand-populate those fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the omission rationale following. No filler, though terms like 'specials' and 'per-breakpoint config' are project jargon that go unexplained.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well, enumerating what the node will and will not contain. What is missing is the downstream step — which sibling consumes this node (e.g. add_section/validate_page) — leaving the workflow slightly open.

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 both parameters (type, name) are already documented in the schema, including the name-override semantics. The description only restates that a type is required and adds no format, enum, or naming-convention detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — it *returns* a default element node for a given type, in a named 'sparse authoring shape'. The word 'Returns' implicitly separates it from retrieval tools like get_element and from the persisted new_page_skeleton, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or conditional routing to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the mention of the 'sparse authoring shape' and the fact that the server fills gaps on validate/save, from which an agent can infer this is a pre-authoring scaffolding step rather than a read of existing data.

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