Șterge (reversibil)

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the deletion is reversible, the item is moved between versions, and it can be restored with 'restaureaza'. It also discloses that the effect is both 'de pe site' and 'din listă', which is useful for the agent.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, and the reversibility/restore info follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with strong annotations, the description covers the core behavior, scope, and reversibility. It does not describe the return format or post-condition details, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including enum values, patterns, and examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the 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 states a concrete action and resource: it removes an element from the site and the list, moving it between versions. This clearly identifies the tool as the reversible deletion operation for pages/articles, and the mention of 'restaureaza' plus the sibling 'sterge_fisier' helps distinguish it from file deletion.

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 intended use is implied: delete a content element (page/article) rather than a file. However, the description does not explicitly give when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as 'sterge_fisier' for files or 'retrage' for publication status.

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