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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value beyond them: the delete is soft with a 30-day TTL tracked via deactivated_at and is recoverable only in the app UI within that window. It also discloses the full authorization model, which annotations do not cover.

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 reversibility window in the first clause; the dense authorization matrix is justified but jargon-heavy (dm-notes, player-notes, GM-side) and could be tightened. No wasted sentences overall.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. Together with the reversibility window and permission rules, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether it may call this tool.

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 the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as the Mongo _id. The description's 'by id' adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with the crucial qualifier 'soft-delete by id', which distinguishes it from a hard delete and from sibling deletes (play_delete_campaign, play_delete_session, imagine_delete_*_page). The TTL mechanism (deactivated_at) confirms the exact semantics.

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 strong preconditions — who may delete a page (owner, admin in Admin Mode, GM of a public or GM-side page) and who may not — plus an explicit 'Confirm with the user first' instruction. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or the inverse (e.g., how to restore), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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