page_op

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one genuinely non-obvious side effect: deleting a page sends its apps to the App Library, iOS-style. It omits other traits an agent would want for a mutation tool, such as whether indices shift after insert/delete, whether undefined parameters are rejected, and whether the operation is undoable.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and no wasted wording; each parenthetical earns its place. The 'page -> `to`' arrow shorthand for move is slightly cryptic and relies on the reader parsing notation rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core op semantics are covered. For a three-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, though, the definition leaves meaningful holes: index conventions, side effects of insert on page count, and any relationship or overlap with the standalone `move` sibling tool.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates the valid `op` values (the schema declares `op` as a bare string with no enum) and binds each parameter to its operation ('new empty page at `page`', 'page -> `to`'). Residual gaps are the indexing base for `page`/`to` and what happens if `to` is omitted on a move.

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 names the resource (pages) and enumerates the three concrete operations with a verb each (insert, move, delete), so the agent knows exactly what class of action this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as `move`, `arrange`, or `swap`, which operate in adjacent territory and could be confused with op='move'.

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?

Usage is implied by the per-op glosses rather than stated: an agent can infer insert/move/delete from the parenthetical explanations, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-a-sibling guidance, no prerequisites, and no note about when 'to' is required.

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