delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the destructive mutation, the cascade from page to artboards, the warning when a document-version screenshot references the target, and the need to refresh open canvas tabs. It does not mention reversibility or auth requirements, but the delete semantics are explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and id rules come first, followed by the warning edge case and the post-action refresh step. Every sentence carries useful information and none is redundant.

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?

The description covers target types, id prefixes, cascading deletion, the reference warning, and the observable result after deletion. Since there is no output schema, it does not specify the success response shape, but for a destructive delete call this is a minor gap given the clear behavioral details.

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?

The schema describes projectId and dir but leaves targetId undocumented; the description compensates by specifying pg_/ab_ prefixes and the page-vs-artboard distinction. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it adds nothing for dir beyond the schema's own coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('删除'/'delete') and identifies the exact resources: pages with pg_ prefix and artboards with ab_ prefix, including the cascading behavior for pages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling upsert tools such as upsert_page and upsert_artboard, which create or update rather than delete.

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 makes it clear when to use the tool: to delete a page or artboard by id, with the prefix rule telling the agent which id form maps to which target kind. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling deletion tool exists, so the usage context is effectively implied.

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