Delete Wiki Page

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description clearly states that deletion cannot be undone and explains the two-call preview/confirm process. This provides crucial context for safe use.

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 short sentences lead with the core purpose, then add critical warnings and confirmation details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete operation, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and the confirmation protocol. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema is needed for a delete operation.

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% and descriptions for both parameters are already detailed, including the confirm behavior for elicitation-capable clients. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Delete a wiki_page by id,' clearly identifying the verb and resource, and distinguishing it from wiki_page_update, create, or get. The irreversibility warning reinforces the destructive purpose.

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?

It explicitly outlines the confirmation flow: elicitation-capable clients are prompted interactively, while others must call again with confirm:true after reviewing the preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the delete use case is unambiguous given the tool name and siblings.

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