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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is a soft delete, connections and anchored opportunities are cascaded with it, restore reverses the whole set, and it may return needs_confirmation requiring the page to be named and approval awaited. That is rich behavioral disclosure covering scope of destruction and reversibility.

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 core behavior (trash/soft delete) before the routing guidance, and every clause earns its place: scope of cascade, alternative tool, id provenance, confirmation protocol. No filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the mutation's effect, cascading scope, reversibility, id source, and the needs_confirmation approval loop. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents pageId, workspace, and approvalId, and the description adds provenance ('Page ids come from compass_pages_list / compass_pages_search') plus the confirmation/approval flow context. Useful beyond the schema, though it does not restate the workspace-scoping semantics.

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+resource ('Moves a page to the trash') and immediately qualifies it as a soft delete. It explicitly contrasts itself with siblings compass_pages_restore and compass_pages_update, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('REMOVE a page you or an extraction created wrongly, or one the user says no longer belongs') and an explicit alternative ('to fix a wrong title or body, use compass_pages_update instead'). Nothing is left to inference.

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