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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('permanently delete') and the auth requirement ('requires a key'), but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or consequences (e.g., if the site is published).

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it omits essential parameter details. Conciseness is present but at the expense of completeness.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error states, or confirmation behavior, leaving agents with significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain the role of the 'name' or 'key' parameters. The description only mentions 'key' implicitly but does not map parameters to their purpose.

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?

The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a site the key owns' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (site), and adds scope (owned by the key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_publish_key or list_sites.

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 implies usage for deleting sites owned by a key but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The requirement for a key is stated but no exclusion criteria.

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