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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and cascades to audits and readiness history. It stops short of naming auth requirements or a confirmation step.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, that it is irreversible, and related tools.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the destructive cascade and irreversibility for a single-param tool. It leaves mild ambiguity about whether other workspace resources (posts, keywords) are also removed, which matters for a permanent delete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Site id from list_sites'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 removes a website') and scopes the blast radius to audits and readiness history, which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_post, delete_assets, and archive_post. An agent can identify the target of this tool 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?

Usage is only implied by the irreversible deletion semantics; there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against alternatives such as archiving or removing only the site's assets. The 'Related: list_sites, save_site' tail is a weak pointer rather than guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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