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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the exact blast radius: the link 404s for everyone in the project, auto-refresh stops, and widgets/queries/spreadsheets are preserved. It also states the returned _id, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 action, then cascade effects, then the non-destructive alternative, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is wasted despite the four-sentence length.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, side effects, preserved resources, the alternative path, and the return value. 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 the origin of both pageId and projectId is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or scoping detail beyond what the properties already say, 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a hosted page') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling 'fastero_delete_dashboard' by noting a dashboard deletion cascades to its page. An agent can distinguish this from get_page, update_page, delete_dashboard without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use fastero_delete_dashboard when the goal is the dashboard, and use fastero_update_page when the goal is to change content while preserving the link. The when-not condition (don't use this to edit) is stated outright.

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