Delete wiki page

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely new facts: a successful deletion returns no data, and missing project_id/slug raises MissingParameterError. It says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation, or what 'slug' identifies.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the body is auto-generated docstring boilerplate ('**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request') that is vague and consumes space. It is short enough overall, but roughly half the text is low-value scaffolding.

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 operation, the description does cover the return behavior and the missing-parameter failure, and there is no output schema to explain. However, with 12 parameters at 0% coverage and nothing said about irreversibility or identifying the target page, it falls short of what a delete tool needs.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names only project_id and slug (as examples under '**kwargs'), leaving title, content, branch, file, data, version, format_type, render_html, with_content, and api_parameters entirely unexplained. A caller cannot tell which of the other ten are ignored by a delete.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a wiki page for a project.' That separates it cleanly from gitlab_create_wiki_page, gitlab_update_wiki_page, and gitlab_get_wiki_page in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool rather than gitlab_update_wiki_page or gitlab_get_wiki_page, and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions. The only usable usage signal is indirect: the Raises section implies project_id and slug must be supplied. That is inference, not guidance.

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