create_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a page and lists types, but gives no details about side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on creation (e.g., persistence, validation, default values). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and type options. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, constraints (e.g., uniqueness of name), or how the page types differ. The description is minimally viable but clearly incomplete for a complex create operation with multiple optional fields.

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 by explaining parameters. It only repeats the enum values for 'type' (already present in the schema) and does not explain the meaning of 'name', 'chapter', or 'priority'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new page.' It additionally lists the valid page types (sequence, static, cinematic, manifest), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages, read_page, rename_page, and delete_page. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer create_page over other page-manipulation tools like rename_page or delete_page, nor does it explain when each page type would be appropriate. The only contextual hint is the list of types, but this is more about parameter selection than usage context.

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