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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-readOnly, and the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (saved answers/state, read receipts, stored events), the downstream consequence (event history reports a gap), the on-screen effect (falls back to Start page), and that the deletion is irreversible. The DEVICE_BUSY precondition is also disclosed, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 core action and its scope come first, followed by consequences and edge cases in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, which slightly slows parsing, but every clause carries real 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers destruction scope, irreversibility, screen fallback, and the busy-state failure. The only gap is the unexplained device parameter for a destructive operation where targeting the wrong device is costly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it explains view_id and precisely defines revision's effect (absent = all kept revisions, present = that revision only). The required device parameter is never explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ("Deletes a page the screen keeps") and immediately qualifies scope by view_id and by revision granularity, so an agent knows this is not a generic page or device operation. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings such as page_show, pages_list and view_get_state.

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 concrete selection conditions: deletes every kept revision unless revision is supplied, and refuses with DEVICE_BUSY while a page is still being installed. It also points to a human-side alternative (Settings › Page history) but never names a sibling tool as the alternative for agent use, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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