pbi_delete_page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: confirm=true is mandatory, the tool refuses to delete the last page (with a rationale), and it updates page order and active page. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then provide essential safety caveats. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: destructive nature, confirmation requirement, and the last-page guard. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that confirm must be true and implies page is the target. However, it does not explain the format of 'page' or the purpose of 'request_id', leaving some parameter ambiguity.

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 ('Elimina una pagina') and resource ('pagina'), clearly identifying the delete action. It also mentions side effects (updating order and active page), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_duplicate_page, pbi_rename_page, and pbi_reorder_pages.

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 explicitly states that the tool is destructive and requires confirm=true, and it warns against deleting the last page. This provides clear usage guidance, though it does not name alternative tools. However, the deletion action is unique among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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