create_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the side effect (creates a page), the non-switching behavior, and the returned page ID. It omits edge-case behavior such as duplicate-name handling or persistence details, but covers the main behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant or repetitive content. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple creation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how to target a file, what it returns, and what follow-up call is needed to work in the new page.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for fileId by explaining the active-file vs explicit-file distinction and the multi-agent parallel scenario, which goes beyond the schema's wording. The name parameter is also tied to the display name behavior.

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 verb and resource ('Creates a new page') and clarifies the two possible targets: the active file or an explicit file via fileId. It also notes the return value, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_artboard and create_file.

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 provides clear context on when to omit fileId (active file) versus pass it (reliable targeting when multiple files are open), and it explicitly directs the agent to call open_file afterward. It does not, however, explicitly contrast create_page with sibling creation tools or state when not to use it.

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