Create page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It usefully discloses the duplication risk, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens when placement params conflict — schema covers that last point, yet auth and failure behavior remain undisclosed.

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: the create action and destination are front-loaded, then the dedup advice. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement, and the dedup caution but omits permissions, return shape, and error behavior. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would need before calling confidently.

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 80%, so the schema already explains book_id, chapter_id, markdown, and tags. The description's 'inside a chapter (chapter_id) or directly in a book (book_id)' largely restates the schema's placement semantics without adding format or precedence detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a page') plus the input format ('from Markdown') and where it lands (chapter_id or book_id), which implicitly separates it from create_book/create_chapter/create_shelf. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by resource name rather than a direct contrast.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: 'Check first that a page on this topic doesn't already exist — updating beats duplicating,' which routes the agent toward update_page over create. It stops short of naming the tool (search/update_page) to use for that check, so the workflow link is implied rather than explicit.

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