Sayfayı sil

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint:true, and the description adds that it's a soft delete, reversible from the panel. This adds value beyond annotations by explaining the reversibility, which is critical for an AI agent to avoid unnecessary caution. However, it doesn't detail other behaviors like idempotency effects, but that's not required.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and critical caveats. No fluff; every sentence adds essential context. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (soft delete, confirmation requirement, template restriction) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details. It is complete for safe, correct use.

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 covers both parameters fully (page with format examples, confirm with const true). The description adds the meaning of confirm as explicit approval, which is important context beyond the schema. It doesn't repeat schema details, so credit for supplementary clarification.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a page ('Sayfayı siler') and immediately clarifies it is a soft delete that can be undone from the panel. This distinguishes it from a hard delete and aligns with the sibling tools like create_page and update_page.

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?

Explicitly instructs not to call without user consent, defines the 'confirm:true' parameter as representing explicit user approval, and mentions restriction on template pages. This provides strong guidance on when to invoke and when not to.

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