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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), it discloses credit cost ('spends no credits'), the immediate live-site effect, and a non-idempotency recovery procedure ('A lost write reply must be reconciled with soclo_page_pages and soclo_page_versions before retrying'). These are material behavioral traits the annotations cannot convey.

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 action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, cost, and recovery guidance in a compact sequence. Dense but every sentence carries operational value; 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, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers preview behavior, approval gating, cost, side effects, and failure recovery. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that if_unchanged must be the displayed revision from soclo_page_pages and reiterates the confirm preview semantics. This is beyond a simple restatement of the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove one selected page from the site's page list'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like soclo_page_unpublish, soclo_page_restore and soclo_page_set_visibility. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It states the exact gating condition for the write ('pass confirm:true only after the owner approves the exact change') and the preview behavior otherwise, which is clear operational context. It does not, however, contrast this destructive removal with softer siblings (unpublish/visibility), which would help an agent pick the right tool.

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