delete_lp_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing destructive effects. It states 'Permanently delete' and warns about server-side rejections. It also clarifies the need for confirm: true. This covers the key behavioral traits, though it could additionally state the impact on restore_lp_version or audit history, but that is not essential for use.

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 two sentences with clear front-loading of the primary purpose. It wastes no words, immediately conveys the destructive nature, and then lists critical constraints. Highly efficient and readable.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, permanence, rejection conditions, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain return values or what happens to related versions, but that's not strictly needed. It's complete enough for an agent to decide when to call 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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—'historical' hints at the versionId's role, and 'Pass confirm: true' reinforces the required boolean, but the schema already states these. No significant new semantic detail is added.

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 identifies the action ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('historical landing page version'), and distinguishes it from deleting the whole page (delete_landing_page) or side page versions. 'Historical' also differentiates it from the published version, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when the operation will be rejected (published version or only remaining version), providing clear usage boundaries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies you'd use list_lp_versions to get the versionId and delete_landing_page for whole-page deletion. The constraints effectively guide the agent on valid versus invalid use cases.

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