page_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value by clarifying this is a move-to-trash (soft delete) rather than a purge, and that drafts are unaffected. It stops short of saying whether child pages, attachments, or comments are affected and whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key scoping constraint; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, though it omits side effects on page hierarchy/attachments and any permission requirements.

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% with both url and site documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only adds the qualifier that the target must be a published page, which mildly informs the url parameter but adds no format or identification guidance.

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+resource ('Move a published Confluence page to trash') and immediately scopes what it is not ('Does not purge pages or delete drafts'), so the agent can tell it apart from edit/create/append siblings and from any purge-like behavior.

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 sentence 'Does not purge pages or delete drafts' gives a clear exclusion and implies the tool applies only to already-published pages, but no sibling/alternative tool is named and no prerequisites (permissions, confirmation) are stated.

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