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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the immediate side effect (page goes OFFLINE, private link breaks instantly), reversibility via Trash and restore_page, that this unpublishes an already-shared link, and the authorization constraint. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive-looking action.

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 core action and the offline consequence, then recovery, then the confirmation gate. Slightly verbose with capitalized emphasis and a parenthetical about purging, but every clause carries relevant information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers side effects, reversibility, confirmation protocol, ownership restriction, and identifier sourcing. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly 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% and the single parameter already documents 'viewer URL or slug (the part after the last /)'. The description largely restates it; the only added value is the provenance hint 'e.g. from list_pages'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Move one of your published pages to Trash' — and immediately distinguishes it from a permanent delete and from restore_page. An agent can tell it apart from update_page or restore_page 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 says when to use it, gives a hard pre-condition ('CONFIRM with the user before calling — name the page ... and wait for a clear yes'), names the recovery sibling restore_page, points to list_pages for obtaining the identifier, and states the ownership limit ('only delete your own pages').

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