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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses cascade behavior, immediate offline effect, what survives the deletion, and irreversibility—exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call. It stops short of mentioning required permissions or how dependent entities are detached.

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, then the destruction scope, then the preservation scope, then the irreversibility flag. Every clause carries distinct decision-relevant information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what is retained, the immediacy of the effect, and the lack of undo—leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 both project_id and status_page_id are already documented in the schema, including the 'see whoami' hint for project_id. The description only reinforces 'by ID' and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that baseline.

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 status page by ID') and immediately clarifies scope: components and custom domain certificate go with it, while monitors, incidents and maintenance windows are kept. That scope boundary distinguishes it from the broader delete_project sibling without needing to name it.

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 irreversibility warning ('This cannot be undone') and the 'goes offline right away' note strongly imply the appropriate use case—permanent teardown. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as update_status_page for hiding a page without destroying it, so the agent must infer routing.

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