confluence_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 disclosing destructive behavior. It clearly states both the reversible action ('Move a page to the Confluence trash') and the irreversible action ('permanently purge'), plus the environment-variable and confirm gates. It does not detail side effects on child pages or attachments, but the core destructive impact is explicit.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core behavior and the operational guard with no filler. The most important information, the destructive action and the disable condition, is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and the key restriction, which is the most important context for a destructive tool. However, with five parameters and no output schema, the unhelpful draft and max_chars parameters remain unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about how to use the full input schema.

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, but it only directly references the confirm gate and the purge concept. page_id, draft, and max_chars are left completely unexplained, and no parameter names or value meanings are given beyond the schema's structural constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move a page to the Confluence trash, or permanently purge a trashed page') and clearly identifies the tool's two distinct modes. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which offer deletion semantics.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions for use: the tool is 'Disabled unless CONFLUENCE_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE_OPERATIONS=true and confirm=true.' This tells the agent when invocation will be rejected. It does not state when to prefer an alternative over deletion, but there is no sibling delete tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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