delete-wiki-page-file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with concrete consequences: the action is irreversible and the file is permanently removed from the page. It also states the response is a success confirmation, adding detail beyond the structured fields, though permission/ownership requirements stay unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then organized into required params, example, returns, and note. Slightly padded by a JSON example that merely restates the schema, but no section is misleading or wasted.

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 destructive three-param tool with no output schema, the definition covers the operation semantics, how to obtain the key identifier, the irreversibility warning, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so all three IDs are documented by the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by explaining where to source fileId ($.result.files.id or $.result.images.id), but says nothing extra about wikiId or pageId.

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 file attached to a Dooray wiki page. The compound scope (wiki page file, not the page or a drive file) is clear enough to separate it from delete-wiki-page, delete-attachment, and delete-drive-file, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource boundary rather than stated: an agent can infer this deletes page attachments only. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance pointing to delete-wiki-page or delete-attachment for adjacent operations, though the note on where to obtain fileId is a practical aid.

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