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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's added value is the required 'sites:write' scope, which annotations cannot express. It does not disclose permanence, cascade behavior for child records (assets, work orders tied to the site), or how failures are reported.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first and the permission requirement second.

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, no-output-schema mutation the description covers the essentials (target, key, required scope) but omits the consequences an agent should weigh — whether deletion is permanent and what dependent records are affected. Adequate but with a clear gap given the destructive nature.

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% (single 'id' parameter documented as 'Site ID'), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The phrase 'by ID' confirms the lookup key but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the UUID schema.

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 ('Delete a site by ID'), which cleanly separates it from get_site, update_site, list_sites and the many delete_<other-resource> siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 sites:write scope'), which is real usage guidance, but it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative to destructive removal. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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