modx_virtualpage_delete_handler

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Delete" implies a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, permissions, side effects on existing routes, or the response. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight phrasing.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters and zero required fields, the description says far too little: the effect of deletion, the id-vs-name precedence, and the failure modes are all missing.

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 0% and neither parameter has a description or enum. The phrase "by id or name" is the only added meaning, and even that leaves unresolved what happens when both are supplied, which takes precedence, and whether either is required.

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 a specific verb (delete) and a specific resource (VirtualPage handler), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_handler, list_handlers, create_handler and update_handler tools. It stops short of stating scope consequences, but the object of the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer deletion over update, no prerequisites, no warning that this is irreversible, and no mention of related cleanup (e.g. routes bound to the handler). The agent must infer all conditions itself.

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