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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, but the description adds two things an agent cannot infer: the operation requires edit permission on the page, and body references are deliberately left dangling ('they simply stop resolving'), with the concrete remediation of tidying the body. That is precisely the kind of side-effect disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the identification mechanics, then the non-obvious side effect. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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, no-output tool this covers the essentials: what is removed, how to target it, what is left behind, and the permission prerequisite. Combined with a fully described schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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 baseline is 3. The description does add value by articulating the alternative identification modes (pageId vs. spaceKey + title) and by tying 'filename' to get_wiki_page output, which clarifies how the optional group is meant to be combined rather than used together.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a file from a wiki page') and immediately scopes it to the wiki attachment concept, which separates it from the plain delete_attachment and the delete_wiki_embed siblings. The filename-based targeting tells an agent exactly what object is being acted on.

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?

Gives clear selection conditions for the two identification routes ('Identify the page by pageId, or by spaceKey + title') and points at get_wiki_page as the source of valid filenames. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_attachment or warn when deletion is inappropriate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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