delete_page

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the critical detail that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is beyond the tool's name. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether related content is affected, or any other side effects. For a straightforward delete operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence, effectively front-loaded with the action and consequence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is exemplary in brevity.

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, the description covers the essential irreversible nature, but it lacks parameter guidance, particularly for page_url. Although an output schema exists, it does not indicate how to construct inputs. An agent would need to consult sibling tools like list_pages to determine the correct page_url format, which is not mentioned. This is a moderate gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter ambiguity, but it does not. 'course_identifier' and 'page_url' are not described at all. While course_identifier is relatively self-explanatory, page_url is ambiguous (full URL vs. relative path, or how to obtain it). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess the correct 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 the action: 'Permanently delete a wiki page.' It specifies the resource type (wiki page), distinguishing it from other delete siblings like delete_assignment or delete_announcement. It is direct and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any alternative delete tool, which would have made it a 5.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit. It is obvious you use this to delete a wiki page, and the warning 'This cannot be undone' serves as a caution but not as a comparison to alternatives. It doesn't say 'use this instead of edit_page_content when you need permanent removal,' leaving some inference to the agent. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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