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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the specifics an agent needs: what happens to the site (falls back to static files), what survives by default (volumes/database data), and that deleteData is a permanent, irreversible deletion. This is exactly the "what gets destroyed" context that annotations alone 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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: scope and effect first, data-retention caveat second, sibling routing third. No filler, and the highest-stakes information (irreversibility) is not buried.

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 zero-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the operation, the default-safe behavior, the irreversible flag, and the alternative sibling. No return-value explanation is needed since no output schema exists and the description states the end state instead.

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 name, siteId and deleteData are already documented with their formats and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description's note that volumes hold database data and are deleted "for good" largely restates the schema's "Also delete every volume (database files)... Irreversible," adding only marginal meaning over structured data.

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?

"Stop every container service of the site" names a specific verb (stop) and resource (container services), and immediately states the observable outcome ("the site serves its static files again"). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_site, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: "use remove_app to stop only the containers; use delete_site to remove the whole site." It also gives the condition that changes the risk profile (deleteData true vs false), leaving nothing to inference.

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