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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the real-world consequence ('comes off the live site immediately'), the authorization model (ownership verified via the parent site's user_id), and the return payload (slug and content_type) despite there being no output schema. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before committing to an irreversible publish-affecting action.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the addressing rule, then the side effect, then the return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Covers addressing, live-site impact, auth, and return value for a destructive tool with no output schema. It omits cascade behavior (do child nodes, sections, or published assets disappear?) and whether the slug becomes reusable, which matter for a delete of this scope.

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 75% and item_id has no schema description at all, but the description supplies the crucial semantic the schema lacks: the two parameter sets are alternatives, and slug must be exact when paired with site_id + content_type. It does not clarify what happens if both addressing modes are supplied or whether any parameter is required (required list is empty).

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 (delete) and resource (content item), plus the two alternative addressing keys, so it is clearly distinguished from siblings like delete_page, delete_site and delete_collection. An agent knows exactly what object this removes without opening the schema.

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?

It explains how to identify the target (item_id alone, or site_id + content_type + exact slug), which is implicit guidance on invocation. It never says when to choose this over edit_content_item, delete_page, or list_content_items, and offers no exclusions or preconditions beyond the ownership note.

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