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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: deletion is permanent, it also destroys the revision history, and there is a precondition state. It does not mention any confirmation flow or whether the id must reference an existing archived page, which is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the irreversible nature and the archive precondition front-loaded before any optional detail.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: permanence, scope inclusion (revision history), and the required prior state. Missing only failure-mode details, which the annotations partially signal.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents "id" fully; the description adds no format, type, or lookup detail beyond it. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 ("Permanently delete an archived Info page") with the scope qualifier "archived" that separates it from the sibling archive_info/unarchive_info/delete_* tools. The added clause about revision history makes the effect unambiguous.

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 states the prerequisite: "Active pages must be archived first," which tells the agent when this tool will fail and routes it to archive_info first. It stops short of naming archive_info or unarchive_info as alternatives by name, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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