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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that removal only affects the draft (published site unchanged until next publish), that the home page is protected, and that the call costs $0.001 with no charge on failure. This is exactly the reversibility, safety scope, and billing context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, each carrying distinct value (scope, protection, cost), with the primary behavior front-loaded. No filler.

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 mutation, the description supplies reversibility, protected-resource behavior, and cost – the critical context. The one gap is guidance on the path parameter's expected format, which is left entirely to inference.

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 50% – site is documented in the schema, but path is undocumented in both. The description adds no meaning about the path format (e.g., trailing path like /about). Baseline 3 given partial coverage and no compensating parameter detail.

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 (remove) and resource (page or post) and clarifies it operates on the draft, which implicitly distinguishes it from website_delete (whole site) and website_save_page. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explains the outcome and side-effects but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like website_save_page or website_delete. Usage is implied by the action, not guided.

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