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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens if the path doesn't exist, or whether the site must be unpublished. With strong annotations this is acceptable but thin.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint and the sibling pointer are both front-loaded.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema needs to tell the agent the path convention and the role of baseVersion, and it doesn't. Annotations cover reversibility/safety, so the definition is broadly usable but leaves real gaps for error-prone invocation.

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 only 33% – only `id` is documented ("Site id."); `path` and `baseVersion` are bare. The description says nothing about path format/relativity (site-root-relative?) or what baseVersion means for a delete (optimistic-concurrency token), which is exactly the information missing from 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?

Specific verb ("Delete") plus scoped resource ("partial, section or other non-page file") and it names the sibling it is not ("pages: delete_page"). An agent can distinguish this from delete_page/delete_site/delete_component without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes page deletions to delete_page, which is the main ambiguity risk among the delete_* siblings. It does not mention adjacent tools (read_site_file, edit_site_file, list_site_files) or any precondition such as the site needing to be selected/unpublished first.

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