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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context beyond that: it's a soft delete that preserves audits/reports/issues, published links keep working, it frees a plan slot, and re-adding the domain yields a new website_id. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the deletion and soft-delete consequence, then the plan-slot and re-registration notes, then the confirm flow, then the sibling. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no waste.

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 what the operation does, its reversibility/preservation behavior, side effects on plan limits, identity change on re-add, the confirmation protocol, and the bulk alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents both website_id and confirm with the confirmation flow. The description reinforces the two-step confirm pattern but adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Delete a website from the organization') and immediately clarifies soft-delete semantics, distinguishing it from the sibling delete_websites which is named for bulk removal.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call once without confirm to preview, then again with confirm: true to delete, and routes bulk removal to delete_websites. When-to-use and alternatives are both named.

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