Delete item

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

destructiveHint=true already flags danger, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: this is a soft delete into a recycle bin that an admin can restore, and it details cascade semantics per type (book/chapter delete contents; shelf preserves books). That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (recycle bin, restorable, cascade rules) come before the usage caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies what is missing: reversibility, cascade scope per type, and a gating condition for invoking it. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is absent.

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 carry the load. It does explain the behavioral meaning of each `type` value through the cascade rules, adding real value over the bare enum, but the `id` parameter's expected value/format is never addressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a page, chapter, book or shelf to the BookStack recycle bin') rather than the generic name/title. It also names the exact object types accepted, so an agent can distinguish it from create_*/update_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use constraint: 'Only delete when the user explicitly asked for it,' which is strong safety guidance for a destructive tool. It does not name an alternative (e.g., update or a soft-archive sibling), so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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