Delete Canvas Page

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

The description adds a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: it guarantees the 'at least one page' rule is preserved. This is meaningful context not captured by the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations. It does not mention what happens when violation is attempted, but the rule itself is transparent enough for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Delete a Canvas page') and adds the key constraint. No filler or unnecessary words.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core purpose and the important invariant. It could detail edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if you try to delete the last page), but given the simple interface and available annotations, it is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention pageId at all, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name and tool name. While pageId is fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit semantics or guidance on how to obtain or format it, which is a notable gap given the low 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 clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'Canvas page', and adds a critical scoping rule ('preserving the rule that every project has at least one page') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_canvas_page and rename_canvas_page. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when the tool can be used: deleting a page while respecting the 'at least one page' invariant. This implicitly tells the agent that deletion is not allowed if it would leave zero pages. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the rule itself is a strong usage boundary.

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