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

The annotation already marks this destructive, and the description adds the distinct behavioral detail that the deletion is followed by publishing a result. It does not contradict the annotations, and it makes the side effect explicit beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 destructive delete operation with two required string/array parameters and no nested objects, the description is concise but sufficient: it names what is deleted, where, and the result. The optional 'message' parameter is the only underspecified aspect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'site' is the target site and 'paths' are the file paths to delete, but it says nothing about the optional 'message' parameter, leaving some semantics to inference.

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 ('Delete'), a precise resource ('files from a site'), and the follow-on effect ('publish the result'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site, patch_file, and write_files.

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 clearly implies the use case: deleting one or more files from a site and redeploying. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of 5, but the context is not vague.

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