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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real substance beyond them: pages and versions are destroyed, the site is taken offline first, and the name is permanently reserved so old links can't resolve to another site. That last point explains the non-idempotent behavior rather than just asserting it.

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 tight sentences that front-load the destructive scope before explaining consequences. The trailing 'Free.' is filler that doesn't earn its place, but it is one word and doesn't disrupt the read.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what is destroyed, the ordering (offline first), and the permanence of the name. No output schema exists, but nothing about the return value would change the decision to call it, so the gap is minor.

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% and the schema already defines the site name format via the cncto.co/w/<name> example plus length bounds. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the site") and immediately scopes it to the whole site: "its pages, versions and address." That phrasing distinguishes it from page-level siblings like website_delete_page or website_unpublish without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the severity ('for good'), which signals this is not the tool for taking a site down temporarily. However, it never explicitly points to website_unpublish or website_delete_page as the alternatives for that case, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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