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

destructiveHint=true already flags the mutation, but the description adds value beyond it: the operation is irreversible, a referencing template degrades to the page's own content, and a contract document must be consulted first. It does not, however, cover auth/permission requirements or what the response returns.

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 compact sentences with the irreversible consequence and the cascade behavior front-loaded, followed by a clearly delimited 'Rules:' directive. No filler and nothing buried mid-sentence.

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?

Covers the destructive nature, the cross-entity fallout, the required prerequisite doc, and the ownership restriction. With 100% schema coverage, annotations present, and an output schema declared, nothing material is left for the description to carry.

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 adds meaning on top by explaining the state that the 'force' flag interacts with (a template still pointing at the page), complementing the field-level text about the empty slot that results.

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 a precisely scoped resource (a single-page bundle you authored), which tells the agent exactly which entity class is affected among the many delete-* siblings. Ownership scope ('you authored') further narrows the target.

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: check get-template first when a template points at the page, and read the single-page-contract skill doc before the first call. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. delete-template vs delete-content) or stating when deletion is the wrong choice.

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