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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: discloses the cascade (all pages deleted), the admin access requirement, the expected 204 response, and the required API-key scope. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the permanence and cascade front-loaded before the prerequisites. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the 204 return, and it covers access requirements, scope, and irreversibility for a high-risk mutation. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented inline, including the spaceKey case requirement and account/workspace fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('PERMANENTLY delete a wiki space'), plus the cascade scope ('AND every page inside it') that separates it from wiki_delete_page. An agent can distinguish it from any sibling without opening the 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?

Gives a real precondition ('Requires admin access to the space') and an interaction rule ('surface a clear confirmation to the user before calling'). It doesn't name the narrower alternative (wiki_delete_page) for single-page removal, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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