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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining that deletion is soft (30-day TTL via deactivated_at), recoverable in the UI, and permission-restricted. This adds significant behavioral context despite destructiveHint and idempotentHint already being present.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: operation, TTL/recovery, and authorization/confirmation requirements. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential decision factors: permission, destructiveness, confirmation, recovery, and soft-delete window. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (Mongo _id of the page, minLength 1, required). The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding parameter-specific details, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 precise action ('soft-delete a page by id'), the resource type, and key semantics (30-day TTL, recoverable). This clearly distinguishes it from hard-delete or other delete tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context on when it is appropriate to call: only for pages, owner/admin only, and with explicit user confirmation. It does not name alternatives like play_update_page or imagine_delete_world_page, but the conditions for use are explicit enough to prevent misuse.

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