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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the required OAuth scope (project_sites:write). It does not, however, describe side effects on linked records or irreversibility beyond what the annotations imply.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, the identifier, and the auth scope. It stops short of noting downstream impact on associations or confirming the result, which would push it to a 5.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project site ID', uuid format). The description's phrase 'by ID' merely restates the schema, adding no format or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the lone parameter.

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 a site from a project by ID'), which precisely distinguishes it from the many similarly-named siblings such as delete_site (deletes the site itself) and delete_project (deletes the whole project). An agent can identify the target entity type without opening the 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?

The description supplies a prerequisite ('Requires project_sites:write scope') but gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives like delete_site for deleting the underlying site. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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