start_page_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the no-network behavior, the incremental resumable commit, and the disposable cache with Redis/in-memory sliding ~2h TTL. It also sets expectations about draft loss and recovery ('never a failure'). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow, usage alternative, and cache behavior. Each sentence contributes distinct value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description fully covers the draft lifecycle: start, add sections, incremental commit, cache disposability, and failure recovery. It explains the relationship to build_page and the resumability on timeout, making it complete for a workflow-oriented tool with no output schema.

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 100% and parameter descriptions already provide detailed semantics (e.g., slug leading slash, type prerequisites, SEO mapping). The tool description does not add parameter-level insight, but none is needed given the schema's completeness. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Start a page draft') and resource, clarifies it makes no network call, and contrasts with build_page for large/multi-section pages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_page and add_draft_section.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of build_page for large/multi-section pages', providing a direct alternative. It also outlines the intended workflow with add_draft_section and commit_page_draft, and notes the resumable-on-timeout benefit, giving clear usage context.

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