Trash Page

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the two facts an agent actually needs beyond that: the operation cascades to child pages, and it is never permanent ('This server never deletes pages permanently'). The note on client-side confirmation further clarifies the human-in-the-loop expectation, none of which is derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences with the destructive action and its blast radius front-loaded; nothing is buried. The confirmation sentence is slightly tangential but justified by the destructive nature of the tool.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what happens, what it affects (children), and how to undo it. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents that 'page' accepts an id, slug id or Docmost page URL. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier form, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource plus the scope of effect: 'Move a page and its child pages to the Trash of its space.' The cascade to child pages is exactly the detail that distinguishes this from move_page or list_trash, and naming restore_page as the inverse anchors it against siblings.

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?

'It can be restored with restore_page' routes the agent to the recovery path and implies this is the reversible alternative to permanent deletion. It never states when *not* to use it (e.g., prefer move_page or update_page instead of trashing), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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