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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the published copy survives, the call kicks off an asynchronous internal-agent operation requiring polling of get_agent_session, source edits may run in preview, and a provisioned site is required. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the session returns, which keeps it off a 5.

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 key facts (what is removed, what survives, async + poll, correction path) are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing sentence about the Replo agent's normal tools and integrations is generic boilerplate that dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 async tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: precondition, effect, what is preserved, how to follow up (poll get_agent_session, publish_site), and how to correct. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema only partially conveys – notably that sessionId is used with an unchanged target for corrections and that mismatches are rejected. This slightly exceeds the schema-documented behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove the selected route's draft page') and immediately delimits scope: published copy stays live, and the site and other routes are untouched. This distinguishes it cleanly from create_site_page, edit_site_page, and publish_site.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not: use to remove a draft, not to take a site down, and use publish_site separately to make changes public. It also specifies the correction path (reinvoke with the same sessionId and unchanged target) and the precondition (a provisioned site).

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