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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real value beyond that: the force:true gate, the consent requirement, the cascade scope note that child blocks survive, and the content-contract prerequisite. It does not describe the failure/error behavior for a non-forced call, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a rules line; the permanence/force constraint is front-loaded and the alternative is given in the same breath. No 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation; the description covers the destructive semantics, the alternative path, a side-effect caveat, and a prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces force:true as a hard requirement tied to permanence and situates it against the trash alternative, adding contextual meaning beyond the schema's per-field text, though it largely restates what the schema already says.

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 (delete) and resource (page/post/custom record) plus the critical scope modifier 'PERMANENTLY'. It explicitly contrasts itself with set-content-status, so an agent can distinguish it from the nearest sibling without opening either 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 explicit preconditions ('only when the user said so'), names the alternative tool and the exact call shape to use for the recoverable case (set-content-status {status:"trash"}), and points to the prerequisite skill doc before the first call.

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