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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description specifies THIS IS PERMANENT with no undo, gives concrete error semantics (404 for another project, 409 for planner day), and explains the approval workflow. This is rich behavioral context that 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?

Front-loads the core action and key constraints, and the information is well-organized. However, it is somewhat long and includes some repetition (e.g., 'only pages listed by xtiles_get_project_structure are valid' restates the viewId source), and the final clause about approval could be tighter.

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?

Complete for a destructive mutation tool: it covers prerequisites (viewId source, project scope), error conditions, alternatives for reversible archiving, planner-day handling, and user-approval expectations. With an output schema present, return values needn't be described.

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 both parameters (viewId and projectId, including their sources). The description reinforces that viewId must come from xtiles_get_project_structure, adding a small amount of validation context, but mostly repeats schema information.

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 (Delete) and resource (a page from the project's tab bar), and distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like xtiles_update_page (archive), xtiles_get_planner_content, and planner tile creation tools. An agent can identify the exact operation 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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: only pages from xtiles_get_project_structure are valid, planner days are excluded with specific error codes (404/409), and it names alternatives (xtiles_update_page with is_archived: true for reversible removal, xtiles_get_planner_content / xtiles_create_tiles_from_markdown_in_project_planner for planner days). It also clarifies approval handling and when to ask the user again.

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