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

While annotations already indicate destructiveness, the description adds valuable nuance by specifying that the site itself is not deleted—only the repository connection is removed. This prevents the agent from overestimating the impact and aligns with the destructiveHint without contradiction.

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 action, the outcome, and the confirmation requirement with zero filler. The most important information 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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the effect, the confirmation step, and the post-state of the site. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no new semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Stop publishing a site from its GitHub repository') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site or connect_repo. It also clarifies the non-destructive nature for the site itself, making the intent unmistakable.

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 provides clear context about the effect ('site stays online with current files, can be edited here again'), which implies the appropriate scenario. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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