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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the default is a soft-delete archive and that hard delete requires admin access and ?permanent=true, plus the 204 success code and required API-key scope. It does not cover recovery of archived pages, error behavior for missing slugs, or whether repeated calls are safe, which is why it is not a 5.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and mode split, then the default behavior, then the endpoint details. The verbatim API path is useful for diagnosing failures but is the least essential clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the 204 return code so the agent knows there is no payload to parse, and it covers the admin and scope prerequisites for the destructive path. Missing only edge-case behavior (page not found, already archived), which is minor for a 5-parameter delete 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 coverage is 80% and the schema already documents slug, permanent, account and workspace in detail. The description mostly restates the `permanent` semantics and the URL path rather than adding new meaning, though tying `permanent` to the ?permanent=true query and the admin gate gives some reinforcement. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 (archive/delete) and resource (wiki page by slug) and immediately distinguishes the two modes of operation (soft vs hard delete). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from wiki_update_page or wiki_delete_space without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly explains the decision point between the default archive and permanent delete, plus the admin prerequisite for the hard-delete path. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., why not wiki_move_page to a trash space) or state when deletion is inappropriate, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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