LightCMS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: 'discards the fork copy' clarifies what gets destroyed, while 'does not affect the live page' provides essential safety information that prevents accidental misuse. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical delivers complete information without waste. Every component earns its place: action verb, target resource, destruction clarification, and safety boundary. Front-loaded with the core operation.

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?

Despite being a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true), the description adequately covers scope and safety. No output schema is present, but for a removal operation, describing what is/isn't affected suffices. Could slightly improve by mentioning irreversibility explicitly.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with 'Fork workspace ID' and 'ID of the fork page to remove (not the live content ID)'. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but with high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate per rubric rules.

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 uses specific verb 'Remove' with clear resource 'page from a fork workspace'. The parenthetical '(discards the fork copy, does not affect the live page)' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_content' (live deletion) and 'delete_fork' (entire workspace deletion) by scoping the operation to fork copies only.

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?

The parenthetical clause 'does not affect the live page' provides explicit usage boundaries (when NOT to use), establishing that this tool is for fork workspace cleanup only. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'delete_content', the negative constraint clearly signals this is inappropriate for live content management.

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