delete_status_page

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

The description explicitly says 'soft-delete' rather than simply 'delete', which signals non-destructive or reversible behavior—valuable context since no annotations are provided. It does not elaborate on restoration or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, target, and identifier method with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what it operates on, and how to identify the target. It could add notes on post-delete visibility or restoration, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it.

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 the schema already documents the identifier parameter fully. The description's 'by UID or slug' adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Status page UID or URL-friendly slug'.

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 identifies the action ('soft-delete') and the resource ('status page'), and specifies that the target is addressed by UID or slug. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_status_page_section and delete_status_page_resource.

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 resource type and 'by UID or slug' imply when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling delete tools or when a soft-delete is preferable. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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