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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: deletion is permanent ('for good'), it also removes the draft, it requires user confirmation, and it can be refused by automation dependencies with specific remediation steps. That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the action and the user-confirmation rule in two tight sentences, with no padding. However, the second sentence's phrasing ('point it elsewhere or remove its button (update_automation), or delete it, first') is slightly tangled and takes a re-read to parse.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive scope, consent requirement, and refusal conditions. The only soft spot is the vague 'point it elsewhere' remediation, which an agent must map to update_automation on its own.

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% for the single page_id parameter, whose schema description is just 'Page id'. The description adds no format, source, or retrieval guidance for the id, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documenting.

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 ('Delete a page and its draft') and goes further by disclosing the cascading scope ('and its draft for good'), which distinguishes it from unpublish_page. An agent can tell what this tool destroys 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 an explicit precondition ('Ask the user first') and a clear when-not case: it is refused while an automation sends the page or has a button opening it, with the remedy (update_automation, or delete the automation first). It names a sibling as the fallback path, though it does not contrast with unpublish_page if the agent only wants to take the page offline.

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