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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the page moves to trash, keeps link and aliases reserved, restore window of 45 days, and permanent purge after. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the soft-delete nature, which is essential for the agent to know the action is reversible. Slight deduction for not specifying exact response format, but the description is behaviorally rich.

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 description is a compact paragraph of four sentences, each with a purpose: what it does, what happens after, who can call it, and the safety warning. It front-loads the key actionable verb 'soft-delete' and does not waste words.

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?

Given the tool is simple with one parameter, the description covers the action, outcome, permissions, reversibility, and safety confirmation. It doesn't describe return values, but there is an output schema (though its content is not provided in the context), so the description needn't. It also doesn't mention error conditions, but for a delete tool this is not critical. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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% and the schema describes the 'id' parameter as 'Mongo _id of the world page.' The description doesn't add much about the parameter, but since the schema is complete, baseline is 3. Credit for the description's phrase 'by id' which reinforces the parameter's role, but most semantic weight is on the schema. Thus 4 is justified for not needing more.

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 clearly states the verb (soft-delete), the resource (world page by id), and the key behavioral nuance (soft-delete vs delete). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools like imagine_delete_world and imagine_delete_adventure_page by specifying 'world page' and the soft-delete mechanism.

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 states when to use: caller must own or have edit access, and confirms the user before use. It also implies when not to use by contrasting with other delete tools (which likely do hard deletes) via the soft-delete detail. It provides clear prerequisites and safety steps.

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