penpot_delete_page

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the page count constraint but does not describe side effects (e.g., deletion of contained shapes), authorization requirements, reversibility, or error conditions beyond the last-page restriction. The disclosure is minimal.

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 two succinct sentences: one for the action, one for a critical constraint. No redundant information or extraneous detail. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an AI to parse.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key constraint. However, it omits context such as the destructive nature of deletion, potential cascading effects, or how to recover (e.g., via snapshots). An agent has enough to perform basic invocation but lacks completeness for robust decision-making.

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 input schema defines fileId and pageId with no descriptions; the description adds no further meaning to these parameters. An agent could infer their role from names, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify how to obtain these IDs (e.g., from list results) or their expected format.

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 'Delete a page from a Penpot file', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes this from sibling tools that delete other entities (files, projects, shapes, etc.). The constraint about file page count adds clarity without confusion.

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 constraint that the file must have at least two pages gives a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over other delete tools (e.g., penpot_delete_shapes) or what prerequisites exist (e.g., permissions). Usage context is implied but not comprehensive.

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