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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond that by spelling out irreversibility, cascading loss of values, fields and tabs in all languages, the empty-state outcome of recreating the same slug, and the downstream null-read effect on templates. This is exactly the recovery/implication context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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-loaded with the destructive warning and cascading effects, then alternatives, then prerequisites. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct constraint; the trailing 'Rules:' line is slightly bolted-on rather than integrated, which keeps it off a 5.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, blast radius, downstream effects, alternative tooling, and the mandatory skill-doc read. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both slug and expectedRevision are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('remove an options page'), then extends the scope precisely: every value stored on it, in every language, plus its menu entry, fields and tabs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling save-options-page by contrasting what each does with field values.

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?

Explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('To drop only some fields, save-options-page without them instead'), a pre-flight check ('check what reads it first', with the exact API call fabrement_get_option), a prerequisite skill doc rule, and a hard usage condition ('Ask the user and name the page before calling this' via expectedRevision).

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