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

Although annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description goes well beyond them: it names what ceases to exist (content, versions, page images, reading records, viewer-appended rows), the 30-day reversibility window, the point of no return, and the report-blocking constraint. This is exactly the extra context a destructive tool needs.

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?

Consequences are front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information. It is a single dense paragraph, and the web-console digression is slightly tangential, but no sentence is 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers consequences, reversibility window, irreversibility, blocking preconditions, the confirmation guard, and the alternative recovery tool. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 only 50%, so the description must carry meaning for the undocumented parameter — and it does for confirm, explaining the exact-title-repeat guard and its purpose (avoid deleting the wrong page), plus routing to list_proposals. proposal_id itself is still left to inference from its name and the referenced lookup tool.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a page") and immediately enumerates the exact effects: link breaks, removal from page list/analytics/folders, reader-facing 404. This clearly separates it from siblings like restore_proposal (the inverse) and list_proposals (the lookup step).

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and conditions: use restore_proposal within 30 days, use the web console for immediate erasure, and check with list_proposals before calling. It also states a hard prerequisite — pages with unresolved reports cannot be deleted until the report is resolved.

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