Delete Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanence ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') and the rejection behavior for active pages. It does not mention permission requirements or cascading effects on related resources, but the core mutating and irreversible nature is well covered. Slight gap on side effects prevents a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The purpose is stated first, then the prerequisite, then the constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (permanence and prerequisite) 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?

The presence of an output schema means return values are already covered. The description explains the action, the required precondition, the system's rejection behavior, and irreversibility. It doesn't specify error handling for invalid IDs or whether deletion cascades to comments, but for a delete tool with a well-defined schema, this is nearly complete. Minor omissions prevent a 5.

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% — both page_id and project_id have descriptive comments in the schema (UUID for page, project UUID for project pages vs. workspace wiki). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete a page', a specific verb + resource, and the qualifier 'permanently' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling archive_page. The resource and action are unambiguous, and the mention of rejection on active pages reinforces the delete semantics.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition: 'The page must be archived first' and instructs the agent to 'call archive_page before this'. It also explains why (Plane rejects active pages), giving clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly differentiating from restore_page and archive_page.

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