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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds real value beyond them: it reassures that other pages are only removed from this project (not deleted globally) and that a user decision should precede the call. It does not address idempotency or error behavior for an invalid page, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: behavior, scope of removal, and the user/listing guidance. The key conditional (only when several pages exist) is front-loaded.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important caveats (project-scoped removal, need to ask the user, source of choices). It leaves minor gaps around invalid-page behavior and what is returned, but nothing that would cause a wrong 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% and the single 'page' parameter already documents the id-or-name options, so the description's mention of choices adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries full parameter meaning.

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+resource (sets which Facebook page the project posts to) plus the scope condition (only when the connection holds several pages). An agent knows exactly what changes and when the tool applies, distinguishing it from sibling selection tools like list_subaccounts.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to ask the user which page belongs to the project and names list_subaccounts as the source of choices. Both the when and the prerequisite alternative are stated rather than inferred.

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