Remove Page

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on associated content) or any prerequisites. It merely restates the operation without adding transparency value.

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 description is very concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a simple Args listing, and a practical example. Every element is useful and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action, parameter, and example. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail (e.g., what happens to dependent components), leaving some gaps. The absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable but not fully complete.

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% for the single parameter page_id, and the schema description ('Page ID to remove') already explains its meaning. The description's Args section repeats this exactly, adding no new semantics. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a page'), the resource ('from the design project'), and the method ('by its ID'). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool design_remove_component by explicitly targeting pages.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference related tools like design_add_page or design_remove_component. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.

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