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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds important context beyond that: the deletion is recoverable via history ("lässt sich im Verlauf wiederherstellen"). It still omits permission requirements and exact side effects, but the recovery behavior is valuable.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the recovery caveat in parentheses. No wasted wording.

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?

The destructive nature and recoverability are covered well, but the undocumented id parameter and absence of usage guidance leave meaningful gaps for a deletion tool. An agent still lacks enough context to confidently identify the correct entry and alternative workflows.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the single parameter. It does not explain that "id" identifies the parent-page entry, nor does it give any format or scope detail. The parameter remains semantically bare.

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 ("Löscht") and resource ("Eintrag der Elternseite"), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from related siblings such as save_parent_item, list_parent_items, or remove_support_item.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of undo_change or list_parent_items. Usage is only implied by the delete verb.

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