docmost_delete_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a page, implying a destructive, irreversible mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, confirmation steps, error handling, or what happens to associated data (e.g., comments). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a page') without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose in minimal space, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as success/error responses, side effects (e.g., impact on linked content), or safety warnings. The schema covers the single parameter well, but overall, the description doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'page_id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or usage notes, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a page from Docmost'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'docmost_update_page' or 'docmost_create_page', but the verb 'Delete' inherently distinguishes it from other operations. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing page_id from 'docmost_get_page'), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting comments or spaces), or comparisons to siblings like 'docmost_update_page' for modifications instead of deletion. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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