delete_page_toolDelete a wiki page using admin authentication, optionally recording a reason for the deletion.
Delete a wiki page. Requires admin authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Page title to delete | |
| reason | No | Reason for deletion (default: empty) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionAdded value: +"Reason for deletion (default: empty)"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Page title to delete"v0.1.4Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionRemoved value: -"Reason for deletion (default: empty)"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionRemoved value: -"Page title to delete"Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionAdded value: +"Reason for deletion (default: empty)"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Page title to delete"v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the admin-auth requirement, but for a destructive mutation it says nothing about irreversibility, side effects, whether the page is recoverable, or what happens to related data.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key access constraint. There is no wasted language.
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?
The tool is simple and the input schema is fully documented, plus an output schema exists. However, because this is a destructive operation with no annotations, the description should say more about irreversibility, scope of deletion, and recovery behavior.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Delete a wiki page." That clearly separates it from create, edit, move, and read page tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is 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?
The only guidance is "Requires admin authentication," which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It does not explain when deletion is appropriate, when to prefer archive/edit, or any conditions that should make an agent pause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.