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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what actually happens: files are removed from storage immediately except those shared with other versions, and the live version is protected. This is concrete destruction semantics beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover permissions or return behavior.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then storage behavior, then the live-version restriction and irreversibility warning. No filler, and the most important constraints are 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?

No output schema exists, but for a destructive mutation the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is destroyed, the shared-file exception, the live-version guard, and irreversibility. Only minor gaps remain (permission requirements, whether a result payload reports freed storage).

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% and the description never names siteId, versionId, or confirm. It does add indirect meaning to confirm by stressing 'Cannot be undone' and the irreversibility, which justifies the const-true gate, but siteId/versionId semantics rely entirely on their names. Partial compensation, not full.

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 (delete) and resource (site version) with an explicit scope qualifier: 'old (non-live) version'. This distinguishes it from neuron_sites_delete (whole site) and neuron_sites_rollback (switching live version) without the agent needing to open 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?

Gives a motivating use case ('a wrong upload') and a clear exclusion with the remedy: 'The live version can't be deleted (roll back first)' names the alternative action when this tool is not applicable. It stops short of explicitly routing other delete scenarios to siblings, but the boundary is well drawn.

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