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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, the description discloses atomic validation behavior: unknown ids or attempts to delete all pages cause the whole call to be refused. It also states irreversibility, that undo cannot recover deleted pages, and what identifiers are returned.

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 operation and scope, followed by critical safety constraints and routing to an alternative. Every sentence adds useful information for a destructive tool without unnecessary repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, atomic failure behavior, irreversibility, confirmation requirements, return identifiers, and the relevant alternative tool. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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%, including the page_ids array constraints and source guidance from list_pages or create_design. The description reinforces the one-or-more semantics and validation behavior around page_ids but does not add format details 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: deleting one or more template pages along with their layers and motion. It clearly distinguishes the operation from delete_layers, which handles layers inside a page, so an agent can select the correct sibling without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for removing sizes or variants the user no longer wants, and directs layer removal to delete_layers. It also adds the important prerequisite to confirm with the user first because deletion is irreversible.

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