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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the delete is reversible via a deleted-adventures list restorable from the UI, contained pages are tombstoned alongside it, and authorization is enforced by role with a 404 for contributors.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its soft-delete nature, followed by routing effects, authorization, and the confirmation instruction. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description still covers the mutation's scope (pages tombstoned), recoverability, auth requirements, and the confirmation step — everything an agent needs to call this 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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining it is the Mongo `_id`. The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', so this is the expected baseline when the schema does all the work.

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 (soft-delete), resource (adventure), and lookup key (by id), and the word 'soft' immediately separates it from the hard-delete siblings like imagine_delete_adventure_page. An agent can identify the 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?

Gives clear preconditions: caller must be owner or admin with Admin Mode on, contributors get 404, and it instructs the agent to confirm with the user first. It does not, however, name a competing sibling or state when to choose deletion over e.g. imagine_update_adventure, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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