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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important context beyond them: by default files are kept and only the domain stops being served, delete_files=true erases files, and confirm=false previews. This directly discloses reversibility and destructive scope, which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds useful information: scope restriction, parameter meaning, and reversible versus destructive behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 explained. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies most necessary behavioral context, including reversibility and preview mode, but leaves the server parameter unexplained and does not mention any permission or auth requirements.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains site ('the key or the domain'), confirm ('confirm=false previews'), and delete_files ('also erases them'), covering three of four parameters. The server parameter is never mentioned, leaving one undocumented parameter.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Removes an EXTRA website from the server.' The parenthetical clarifies scope by saying the primary site cannot be removed here, which distinguishes this tool from add_site, list_sites, and other site-management siblings.

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?

It gives a clear when-not condition: the primary site cannot be removed here. It also describes the default reversible behavior and the preview mode, which helps the agent choose appropriate parameters. However, it does not name an alternative tool for removing the primary site or for related recovery operations.

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