delete_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: the delete is preceded by a fetch of the current version (implying a concurrency/read-before-write step) and descendant deletion is controlled by 'recursive' (default False). However, for a destructive mutation it omits whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are needed, and what happens to related links or references.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan with no filler. It is slightly docstring-formatted, with a Returns line that duplicates a function whose output schema already exists.

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 parameter documentation is complete and the output schema means return values need not be described. But for a destructive operation with zero annotations, the description leaves out key behavioral facts (reversibility, required permissions, side effects on links/children when recursive is false), which an agent needs before invoking a delete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains id (preferred selector when both are given), path (slash-separated form), and recursive (meaning plus default). The id-vs-path precedence rule is genuine added meaning not present in the schema, though the recursive default also exists as a schema default.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a page') and adds a notable scope detail ('after fetching its current version'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as move_page or archive-type flows, so it falls short of 5, but an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The only routing hint ('id: ... preferred when both selectors are supplied') concerns parameter selection within the tool, not tool selection, and is conveyed at the parameter level rather than as usage context.

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