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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by naming what is destroyed (content, version history, records, collections, share-link viewability, address forwarding) and stressing irreversibility ('nothing can read any of it back afterwards'). That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Effects are front-loaded in the first sentence, guidance and the alternative follow in order of need, and no sentence is filler. The length is justified by an irreversible destructive operation.

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 two parameters, the description carries what matters: full blast radius, irreversibility, pre-deletion reads, and the correct tool for a superficially similar problem. Nothing an agent needs before calling a destructive delete 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?

With 2 parameters at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents site_id and the workspace_id scoping rules. The description adds only the phrase 'by id' and no additional syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a site by id') and immediately enumerates the concrete consequences (marks deleted, purges content and version history, removes records/collections, breaks share links and forwarding). An agent can distinguish this from sibling mutations like delete_collection, delete_folder, or rollback_site without opening any 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?

It gives explicit prerequisites ('read what matters first: list_site_collections ... then get_site_content and export_site_data') and an explicit when-NOT clause with a named alternative ('Not a way to fix a broken address: create_share_link ...'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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