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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains the destructive nature, the subtree deletion behavior with refusal unless includeChildren is set, the unconditional protection of the home page, and the permission requirement. It even notes that the response will list what would be deleted, which is valuable operational context.

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 concise — four sentences that front-load the purpose, then cover identification, the critical subtree caveat, the home-page exception, and the permission requirement. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to identify the target, the main risk (children), the required flag, an absolute restriction (home page), and the permission prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke 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?

Although the schema descriptions already cover each parameter at 100%, the description adds meaningful interplay between them: the mutual exclusivity of id vs. title+spaceKey, and the consequence of includeChildren (deletes descendants but requires explicit opt-in). This goes beyond the isolated schema descriptions and clarifies how to combine parameters correctly.

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 starts with the clear verb-resource pair 'Delete a wiki page' and immediately specifies the two identification methods ('id' or 'spaceKey'+'title'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_wiki_page or get_wiki_page. The inclusion of key constraints (children, home page, permission) further anchors its purpose.

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 description implicitly defines when to use it: when you need to permanently remove a wiki page. It provides operational constraints (requires edit permission, home page never deletable, children subtree refusal unless includeChildren=true) that guide correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive actions, but for a delete operation this is not a major gap.

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