pages_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the minimum-page constraint, but omits whether the deletion is reversible (a history_undo sibling exists), how errors on the last page surface, and what the response contains for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the constraint in a parenthetical. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 destructive, unannotated, no-output-schema tool the description is only partially complete: it covers the key precondition but leaves reversibility, failure behavior, and confirmation requirements unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents the 0-based index semantics, so the description's 'by index' adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 (deletes) and resource (a page from the document), scoped by index. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pages_add, pages_switch, and pages_duplicate, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 parenthetical establishes a precondition (at least 1 page must remain), which implies when the call is invalid, but there is no guidance on when to delete versus duplicate, switch, or clear pages. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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