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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds the key operational consequences: the address stops answering immediately, calling pages or forms break, and the action cannot be undone. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

It is two tightly written sentences with the main action and risk front-loaded. Every phrase adds useful information, especially the immediate breakage and irreversibility warnings.

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 full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is largely complete because it communicates irreversibility and live impact. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying whether drafts are also affected or whether confirmation/preconditions are expected, but no output schema exists so return values need not be explained.

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%, so the schema already explains site_id and function, including their source tools. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but merits only the baseline score.

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 names a specific verb and resource — permanently deleting a function — and immediately states the live-site effect. That distinguishes it from siblings such as deploy_function, test_function, and create_function_draft without requiring schema inspection.

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 permanent, live-site deletion language, and the breakage warning gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as updating or deploying a function, nor does it state clear when-not-to-use conditions.

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