delete-wiki-page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds useful nuance by implying child pages are affected and must be checked first, but it never states whether the delete is permanent, what happens to children/attachments/comments, or whether confirmation is enforced server-side.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety workflow. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and clear safety annotations, this covers the essentials plus a verification workflow. The remaining gap is the consequence model (irreversibility, child-page fate) that an agent would want before committing.

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 100% with only two required parameters (wikiId, pageId), both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or scoping guidance for either ID, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 wiki page'), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling delete tools (delete-wiki-page-comment, delete-wiki-page-file, delete-drive-file). The Korean gloss adds nothing but costs nothing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: confirm the target with get-wiki-page and inspect children with get-wiki-page-tree. That is real, actionable routing advice tied to named sibling tools. It stops short of saying when NOT to delete or what to do if children exist.

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