delete_page_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that the operation will be refused for system types and in-use types, and by requiring explicit user confirmation. This provides important safety context beyond the schema, though it does not mention permission requirements or describe the response/error format.

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 no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by necessary constraints and a confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: refusal conditions, prerequisite page cleanup, and user confirmation. It could be slightly more complete by noting auth requirements or the absence of a return value, but as written it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, pageTypeId, already has a clear description ('Page type id to delete'). The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Delete a page type') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_page, delete_form, and delete_model. The resource is unambiguous and the 'page type' namespace is clarified by sibling names such as list_page_types and update_page_type.

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 states when to call the tool ('Only call after the user explicitly confirms') and explains exclusions: system types and types currently used by pages. It also tells the user to move or delete pages first. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide when deletion is appropriate.

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