delete_side_page_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is permanent, explains the repointing behavior for draft deletion, specifies server rejection scenarios, and notes that rejection reasons are returned as-is. This gives sufficient transparency for a destructive operation.

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 concise—three sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and the confirm flag requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is complete for correct invocation: it covers the operation's destructiveness, allowed/disallowed cases, error response behavior, and the confirm prerequisite. The schema already covers the remaining parameter details.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the contextual nuance that deleting the current draft repoints to the newest remaining version, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., versionId source, confirm requirement).

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 historical side-page version,' which clearly identifies the verb (delete), resource (side-page version), and scope (historical). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_side_page (delete whole page) and delete_lp_version (landing page version) by explicitly targeting side-page versions.

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 provides clear constraints on when deletion is permitted: deleting the current draft is allowed, while published/live versions and the only remaining version are rejected. This gives when-not guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., restore_side_page_version or delete_side_page) for different deletion needs.

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