lpb_delete_page

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

无 annotations，描述承担全部行为披露。描述标注了写操作和破坏性，但未说明删除是否可逆、是否影响关联数据或返回值；confirm 参数的 dry-run 行为仅在 schema 中体现，描述未正面说明。

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?

单句描述，无冗余信息，直接点明操作类型和风险提示，结构简洁高效。

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?

结合 schema 已提供参数说明，描述虽简短但足以让用户理解操作目的和风险；缺少返回值说明，但删除操作通常无需复杂输出，整体完整度较高。

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 覆盖 100% 参数描述，confirm 参数说明了 false/true 含义，reason 参数说明了审计用途，因此描述无需额外补充参数语义。

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?

描述明确指出'删除落地页'，动词+宾语清晰，并注明'写'和'破坏性操作'，与列表、获取、创建、更新等兄弟工具明确区分。

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?

描述提示需确认且强调破坏性，提供了清晰的使用前提，但未明确提及与替代方案的对比或何时不使用本工具。

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