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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the soft-delete cascades to sections and resources, uploaded brand assets are permanently deleted, no undelete exists, and the required mcp scope and user role are stated. This gives an agent the destructive consequences and authorization prerequisites that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the destructive action and its consequences, then alternatives, return shape, and auth requirements. It is dense and largely waste-free, though the reference to non-existent sibling tools makes one sentence less useful than it appears.

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?

Covers the operation, cascade effects, irreversibility, alternatives, return value, and authorization requirements. For a destructive single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the identifier parameter is already fully documented as a UID or URL-friendly slug. The description restates that identifier accepts UID or slug but adds no new syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the 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 (soft-delete a status page) and immediately clarifies scope: removal from API and public site, cascade to sections/resources, and brand asset deletion. It distinguishes the operation from update_status_page's enabled:false and from partial removal tools, so an agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: no undelete, use update_status_page with enabled:false instead, and use section/resource tools for partial removal. However, the named partial-removal tools (delete_status_page_section, delete_status_page_resource) do not appear in the sibling set, which weakens the routing guidance slightly.

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