page_audit_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the return type ('boolean indicating success') and notes that it 'Does not consume API credits', which are important behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps for a deletion operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core action, return value, and a key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action, return type, and a credit-related behavior, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what 'success' entails. For a deletion tool, more contextual information would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'pageId' documented as 'Page ID to remove'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid page ID or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('one-page audit project from customer project list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_project', but the mention of 'one-page audit project' provides some distinction from general project deletion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_project' or other deletion-related tools. It mentions what it does but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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