Delete a page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral fact that deletion is permanent ('for good') and the permission requirement. It does not describe what happens to the page's contents, whether the action can be undone, or any side effects on linked references. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete one page of a journal for good'), and the permission requirement is stated concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-page delete with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention what happens to the page's content, whether the operation can be undone, or any side effects on journal structure. The permission note is useful, but an agent might benefit from knowing the deletion is irreversible beyond the word 'for good' and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 100%, so both parameters (pageId and journalId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one page of a journal for good.' This clearly identifies the action and target. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like journal-delete (which deletes a whole journal) and journal-set-page (which modifies pages), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to permanently remove a single journal page. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like journal-delete for deleting the entire journal. The permission requirement ('Needs the journal permission level...') provides some context for when it can be used, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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