delete_status_page

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing irreversible consequences, immediate URL invalidation, and the precise non-effect on monitors. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent understand side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the irreversible consequences, and the alternative for a non-destructive use case. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description fully covers what happens on deletion, what does not happen, and what to use instead. Combined with the schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the 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%, with the id parameter fully described as 'Status page UUID, from list_status_pages.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the burden, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a status page.' It also distinguishes the action from the related update_status_page tool by clarifying that this removes the shared view while leaving monitors unaffected, so an agent can confidently select 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 states when not to use the tool: 'To stop sharing without losing the page, set visibility to 'private' with update_status_page instead.' This provides clear routing to the alternative and gives a concrete condition that should trigger the alternative choice.

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