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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it is a 'destructive state-changing action' and that deletion happens 'directly after the MCP client authorizes the call,' which gives a small behavioral nuance beyond the annotations (immediate effect). However, it does not elaborate on irreversibility or additional side effects, so it only marginally extends the annotation-provided information.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the usage condition, then states the destructive nature and prerequisite compactly. Every sentence carries useful information without wasted words.

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 delete tool with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential context: the use case, the destructive consequence, and the source of IDs. It does not cover return values or error cases, but these are likely unnecessary for this operation. The coverage is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that item_ids should be obtained from list-space-documents, clarifying the source of valid IDs and reinforcing that space_id must be numeric. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and helps an agent know how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('Space pages, documents, folders, or external links from a Space'), and differentiates it from sibling tools like delete-space-document (single document) and delete-space (whole space) by limiting scope to items within a Space. The listing of item types adds precision.

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 an explicit 'Use this when...' condition tied to user intent and notes a prerequisite that IDs come from list-space-documents. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or point to alternatives (e.g., delete-space-document or delete-space), so the guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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