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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the important side effect that sub-pages under the target page are also deleted. It also surfaces environment variable requirements and the required PAT scope, giving the agent critical behavioral and authorization context.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the platform constraint and core action. Every sentence adds value: the delete behavior, sub-page consequence, and auth prerequisites are all covered without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the recursive effect, and required environment variables with scope. An agent has enough information to decide whether to invoke it and what prerequisites must be satisfied.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, project, and wikiIdentifier clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting environment requirements, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a wiki page', and clearly distinguishes behavior by noting sub-pages are also deleted. This separates it from sibling wiki tools like ado_wiki_get_page and ado_wiki_create_or_update_page.

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?

The 'AZURE DEVOPS ONLY' prefix gives clear platform context, and the delete verb makes the intended use obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer ado_wiki_create_or_update_page over this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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