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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so well: mentions that references in the page body are left alone and stop resolving, and that edit permission is required. This covers the key side effects beyond the deletion itself. It doesn't discuss reversibility or error cases, but for a delete operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identification method, followed by a side-effect warning and a permission note. Every sentence carries essential information with zero filler. Excellent structure.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential elements: what it deletes, how to identify the target, what side effects occur (references left behind), and what permission is needed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between pageId and spaceKey+title (two identification modes) and by specifying that filename comes from get_wiki_page. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, so it earns a 4.

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 ('Remove'), a precise resource ('a file from a wiki page'), and the exact identification method ('by its filename as listed by get_wiki_page'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_attachment (generic) and get_wiki_attachment (retrieval). No ambiguity.

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 provides clear identification instructions ('by pageId, or by spaceKey + title') and notes the permission requirement. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternative delete tools, but the context makes the target clear. The guidance to tidy the body if it referenced the file is a useful usage hint. Slightly less explicit than naming an alternative, so a 4.

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