Delete a Redmine wiki page by providing its project ID and title. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental removal.
Delete wiki page (DELETE /projects/:project/wiki/:title.json). Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform destructive action | |
| project_id | Yes | project id or identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly communicates a destructive HTTP DELETE and the mandatory confirm:true safeguard, but it does not state permanence, side effects on history or related data, or required permissions.
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 sentence with no filler: it states the action, endpoint, and key safety requirement. The most critical information, deletion and confirm, is front-loaded.
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 simple delete operation with three required parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies project, title, and confirmation. It omits response/error details and permanence, but the low complexity and explicit confirm requirement reduce the risk of misuse.
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 coverage is 67%, and the endpoint template clarifies how project and title map to the request path. The confirm parameter is already described as a const:true in the schema, so the description adds little semantic content beyond reinforcing the safety requirement.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete wiki page') and includes the exact HTTP endpoint, making the action unmistakable. It also implicitly differentiates the tool from siblings like redmine_wiki_page_get and redmine_wiki_page_create_or_update.
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 does not provide guidance on when to choose deletion over other wiki operations, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The only context is the required confirm flag, which is a safety guardrail rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.