delete_status_page

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, that the public URL stops working immediately, and that monitors on the page are NOT affected. This adds critical behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the requirement, then the action, then the consequences, then the alternative. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter, the clear schema, and the annotations, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (API key scope), consequences (permanent deletion, URL stops working), non-effects (monitors unaffected), and the alternative (update_status_page). No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Status page UUID, from list_status_pages.'). The tool description doesn't add much parameter-specific detail, but the schema is sufficient. The description's mention of 'public URL' and 'monitors' indirectly clarifies what the id refers to, but the schema already covers it. Baseline 3 for high coverage, with a slight bump for the description's contextual hints about the resource.

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's function: 'Permanently delete a status page.' It specifies the resource (status page) and the action (delete), and distinguishes it from the sibling update_status_page by noting the alternative for non-destructive visibility changes. The scope 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (when you want to permanently delete a status page) and when not to use it ('To stop sharing without losing the page, set visibility to 'private' with update_status_page instead'). It also names the alternative tool, providing clear routing guidance.

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