Pages Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the auth scope (write_content), the raw HTTP verb, and the API version, but does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on linked content, or failure behavior.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with zero filler: action first, then endpoint, scope, and API version. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.

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 single-parameter destructive endpoint whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description plus scope gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is what deletion implies for the page's content and how errors surface, which a richer definition would mention.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents pageID fully. The description merely restates it in the path template; nothing is added about accepted ID formats or whether a numeric ID differs from a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a page') and the endpoint DELETE /pages/{pageID}, which unambiguously separates it from the pages_list/get/create/update siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting against pages_update (e.g., that this is permanent removal rather than unpublishing), so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'this removes a page'. The 'Required scope: write_content' line is a prerequisite, not a routing hint, and nothing tells the agent whether a non-existent or already-deleted page errors out.

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