delete_notebook_page

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent), it discloses that there is no trash via the API (permanent deletion), the two-step confirm workflow and what the first call returns, the parent's first-page pointer behavior, and that it relies on undocumented writes ('/doc/create', '/doc/update') matched to app 1.71. This is unusually rich behavioral context and is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by edge cases and the implementation caveat. Dense and slightly long, but each sentence carries a distinct constraint (trash, confirm, last page, first-page pointer, experimental writes), so little is wasted for a destructive tool with tricky semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the permanence warning, confirm workflow, routing to delete_notebook, and the undocumented-writes disclaimer, the description covers everything an agent needs to call this safely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that confirm=true is the gate for deleting a page with text and that the preceding call surfaces title, size and first line. That workflow context goes beyond the schema's terse confirm description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a notebook page permanently') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_notebook by scoping the last-page case. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it does not handle.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'The last page of a notebook with a parent is not deleted here — use delete_notebook.' It also explains the conditional confirm flow (a page with text requires confirm=true). Nothing is left to inference.

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