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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description goes well beyond them: nav-link pruning is on by default, a container would not be emptied (kept with a warning), the live site updates immediately while nav-link edits stay in the draft, and remaining links surface in `dead_links`. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and edge-case disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

The exclusion and the default prune behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence (warnings, live vs draft, dead_links) carries operational value. It is slightly dense and could be split, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description supplies the safety-relevant behavior and return signal (preview URL, dead_links). The only real gap is the undocumented cascade flag, which matters because it changes the blast radius.

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 only 50%, so the description must carry weight; it elaborates prune_nav_links well (including the kept-with-warning behavior), but `cascade` is never mentioned in the description and neither slug nor site_id semantics are clarified. With half the parameters undocumented in the schema and cascade absent from the prose, the baseline-3 compensation is incomplete.

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 page from a site') and immediately scopes it with the home-page exclusion. Among siblings (delete_site, delete_collection, delete_content_item) it is unambiguous which resource this removes.

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 it cannot be used (home page '/') and describes the default nav-link pruning plus the opt-out via prune_nav_links:false. It also directs the agent to handle `dead_links` before replying. It does not compare against delete_site or clarify whether child pages are affected outside the cascade flag, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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