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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: nothing is erased, history is retained, add_project restores the same project, open actions stay, no scheduled audits run until restored, and returns projectId/domain/removed. Annotations already mark it destructive and idempotent, but the description explains the exact nature of both.

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 core effect and routes usage effectively, but is somewhat long and has minor overlap between 'Nothing is erased' and later reassurances about history and actions remaining. Most sentences still earn their place by answering distinct agent questions.

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?

Given a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description fills the remaining gaps: reversibility, restoration path, permanent-deletion alternative, and exact response fields. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the single projectId parameter with format and example. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Stop tracking a site') and immediately clarifies the effect: leaves list_projects, stops crawling/checking, frees a site slot. Distinguishes from siblings by naming list_projects and add_project, and by noting permanent deletion is not available here.

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 says when to use it ('for a site you no longer work on, or one you registered by mistake') and when not to expect permanent deletion ('deliberately not available here; the owner does that in the dashboard'). It also guides on idempotency ('calling it again is harmless') and restoration via add_project.

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