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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, with the non-obvious fact that previously published pages are preserved. It stops short of saying whether the deletion itself is permanent or recoverable.

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, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 delete tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — but the identifier ambiguity and the absence of reversibility/permission context leave a real gap an agent could trip on.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is completely undocumentable from the description — it never says whether the id is a guide UUID, slug, or numeric key. With no compensating detail, an agent must guess at the identifier format.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a saved guide') and adds workspace scope. The second sentence distinguishes the outcome from delete_page by stating published pages survive, though it never names the sibling directly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the surrounding delete_page / delete_project / delete_note family. The 'does not delete published pages' clause is a behavioral clarification, not routing guidance.

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