Delete status page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what gets destroyed (settings, groups, custom-domain binding) and emphasizing irreversibility. It doesn't cover auth requirements, though the schema's confirm parameter handles the write-override scenario.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the destructive action and scope, and the second sentence immediately provides the non-destructive alternative. Every word 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 simple delete tool with one required integer parameter and one boolean guard, the description plus schema cover the essentials: what is deleted, irreversibility, the alternative, and the confirm flag's purpose. There is no output schema and no mention of the response shape, but that is a minor gap 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 description coverage is 50% — the confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the id parameter is only typed as an integer greater than 0. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, though the meaning of 'id' is easily inferable from the tool's purpose. This is adequate but not additive.

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 specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a status page') and enumerates exactly what is destroyed — settings, groups, and custom-domain binding. It also distinguishes itself from the publish sibling by framing the alternative, which helps an agent pick the right tool.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: 'To hide a page without deleting, use status_page_publish with action = "unpublished"'. This gives a concrete alternative and the exact condition that routes to it, leaving nothing to inference.

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