trash_collective_page

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the page is soft-deleted, the action is reversible via restore, permanent removal requires a different tool, and the landing page is an invalid target. It even states that a confirmation message is returned, which is useful operational detail.

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 compact and well-structured: operation, soft-delete consequence, undo/permanent alternatives, constraint, args, and return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most important behavioral distinction is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations already covering the destructive/idempotent nature, the description provides the essential lifecycle, constraints, and response information. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does label both required parameters and adds the landing-page restriction, but 'numeric collective ID' and 'numeric page ID' largely restate the schema titles and provide no additional constraints or guidance on how to obtain the IDs. This is adequate for simple ID parameters but not more.

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 opening sentence 'Move a page to the collective's trash' gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately clarifies that the action is a soft-delete. It also names related sibling operations restore_collective_page and delete_collective_page, making the tool's purpose easy to distinguish from permanent deletion.

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 description explicitly explains the soft-delete behavior and tells the agent that restore_collective_page undoes the action while delete_collective_page permanently removes the page. It also calls out the landing-page restriction, giving clear conditions for when this tool can and cannot be used.

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