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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that: it lists every affected resource (subdomain row, snapshots, submissions, alias history, custom domains removed from Vercel, billing cancelled, media bucket) and discloses the atomicity guarantee if billing cancellation fails.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: destruction scope, irreversibility, usage trigger, confirmation gate, and failure behavior are all front-loaded for a genuinely destructive operation where thoroughness is warranted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent everything needed to call it safely: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, that confirm must be true, the subdomain guard, and the abort-on-billing-failure behavior.

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 67% and the schema already documents confirm's const:true and confirm_subdomain's guard. The description reinforces the confirm requirement in a workflow context ('to be deliberate') and ties subdomain confirmation to safety, though it does not compensate for the undocumented site_id.

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 ('Permanently delete a site') and enumerates exactly what is removed, which also distinguishes it from sibling destructors like delete_page, delete_collection, and delete_custom_domain.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with example utterances ('scrap a site', 'I created the wrong template'), explicit when-not-to-use ('Do NOT call this on user-said-something-vague'), plus the required confirmation workflow before invoking.

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