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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the entire two-phase protocol: the tool is proposed, returns status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token, and the write only occurs after confirm_action. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid assuming the delete already happened.

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 and scope, then the confirmation protocol, which is the right order for a destructive tool. The confirmation point is restated twice ("runs only after you confirm" and "the write happens only after confirm_action") — defensible emphasis, but slightly redundant.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: scope, two-phase confirmation, and where the write actually lands. It omits error behavior for a missing or non-owned page_id, which is the only material gap.

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?

A single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden; it only says "by id" and the schema allows integer or string without explaining which identifier form is expected. The scope note (own page only) adds some meaning, but the identifier format is left ambiguous.

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 ("Delete a personal wiki page by id") and adds the scoping constraint that only the caller's own page is reachable. That scope qualifier separates it from the many other delete_* siblings and from update_wiki_page/get_wiki_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 tells the agent this tool does not delete directly and must be followed by confirm_action, naming the sibling that completes the flow and the status value that triggers it. It does not cover when a page should be updated rather than deleted, nor what happens on a non-owned or missing id, but the critical routing guidance is present.

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