delete_page

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to page contents, whether there are constraints (e.g., cannot delete the last page), or what the response looks like. This is a significant transparency gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It delivers the essential purpose and a key parameter nuance in an efficient manner. There is no waste, and the structure is optimal for its brevity.

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?

Even though the tool is simple (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it. It omits the meaning of reportSessionId, possible return/error responses, and any prerequisites or side effects. Given no annotations and no other documentation, this is incomplete.

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 0% (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the pageName parameter accepts either a name or displayName, which is useful. However, it completely omits the reportSessionId parameter, which is required but unexplained. The description only partially helps with parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('a report page') and adds a distinguishing detail ('by name or displayName'), which differentiates this tool from other delete tools like delete_visual or delete_measure. The verb and object are unambiguous, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to delete a report page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., clear_pages for clearing content, or delete_visual for removing specific visuals). The absence of alternatives is acceptable for a simple tool, but the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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