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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description goes well beyond them: the form stops working immediately, tickets survive until their scheduled deletion, the action is irreversible, and it requires ownership. That is exactly the extra context a destructive tool needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then safety constraints. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers impact, irreversibility, authorization, and the confirmation ritual. An agent has everything needed to call it responsibly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the confirm_name instruction. The description reinforces the confirmation behavior but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

'Remove a site' gives a specific verb and resource and is clearly distinct from remove_article, remove_domain, and remove_integration. The only weakness is terminology drift: the tool is remove_product with a product_id parameter, but the description speaks of a 'site', which could momentarily confuse an agent mapping schema to prose.

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?

States concrete preconditions: owner only, ask the person first, and pass the exact name to confirm. It does not name an alternative (e.g. update_product for non-destructive changes), but the destructive framing makes the use case unambiguous.

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