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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: subtree deletion semantics, the refusal path when children exist, the fact that the refusal response enumerates what would be deleted, the undeletable home page, and the edit-permission prerequisite. That is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct fact — identification, subtree handling, home page, permission — with the destructive semantics front-loaded. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description pre-empts the one return behavior that matters (the refusal answer names the affected pages). For a 4-param, zero-required destructive tool, nothing an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the id-or-(spaceKey+title) pairing as an identification strategy and frames includeChildren as an opt-in escape hatch rather than a plain boolean. Marginal gain over the schema, hence 4 not 5.

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 and resource ("Delete a wiki page"), and the sibling set contains delete_wiki_attachment and delete_wiki_embed, which this clearly is not. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 the two identification modes (id, or spaceKey + title) and the two hard stop conditions (subtree refused without includeChildren, home page never deletable). It does not name sibling alternatives such as get_wiki_page for verification or delete_wiki_attachment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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