LightCMS

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

Adds significant value beyond annotations: clarifies 'soft-delete' semantics (recoverable destruction), states the specific side effect of 'Removes the static HTML page,' and confirms idempotency through the restoration capability. No contradictions with destructiveHint=true or idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: defines operation, states recoverability (critical for soft-delete), and specifies side effect. No redundant or wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Comprehensive for a deletion tool: covers soft-delete semantics, recovery path, and specific side effects (HTML removal). Annotations provide safety hints (destructive, idempotent). No output schema present but unnecessary for this operation type given idempotency disclosure.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, the schema fully carries the parameter semantics load. Description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 specific action 'Soft-delete' targeting a 'content item' and distinguishes from hard-delete siblings by noting it 'can be restored later.' Also differentiates from other delete_* tools (delete_asset, delete_folder, etc.) by specifying the content resource type.

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?

Implies reversibility ('can be restored later') which hints at the restore_content sibling tool, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons against alternatives like archive_fork. Provides minimum viable context for agent selection.

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