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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral context: the operation is irreversible, nothing can read the data back afterwards, content and version history are purged, records/collections are deleted, and the share link becomes non-viewable. This fully discloses the destructive consequences.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, effects, irreversibility, pre-read guidance, and an alternative are all included. Key consequences are front-loaded before the cautionary and alternative statements.

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 tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains what gets destroyed, what cannot be recovered, what to do first, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both site_id and workspace_id thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'by id', which is consistent with the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 verb and resource: deletes a site by id, and enumerates exactly what happens (marks deleted, purges content and version history, deletes records and collections, makes share link non-viewable). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_share_link, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 explicitly says when NOT to use it ('Not a way to fix a broken address') and names the alternative (create_share_link) that should be used instead. It also provides concrete pre-call steps with sibling tools (list_site_collections, get_site_content, export_site_data) before performing the destructive action.

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