YeetIt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently. It discloses permanence, immediate inaccessibility, authentication requirements (edit_key or api_key), the safety confirm:true mechanism, and the irreversibility of deletion. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavioral traits and consequences.

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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core action and immediate consequence, the second covers requirements and safety, and the third provides usage timing and a warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, consequences, authentication, confirmation, and usage context. It could potentially mention the expected response or error behavior, but the current info is largely complete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with high coverage (100%), including the safety mechanism for confirm. The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, except clarifying that authentication can be via edit_key OR api_key, which is also inferable from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a published website.' It also notes the immediate consequence ('The site will be immediately inaccessible'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_website_status, publish_website, and update_website.

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?

The description provides explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Use this when a user explicitly asks you to remove or delete a site.' It also adds a critical usage rule: 'Always confirm with the user before calling this tool — deletion cannot be undone.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The description discloses that 'No authentication required — this is public information,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait absent from annotations (none provided). It also specifies the tool is for published websites. However, it does not address error behavior (e.g., non-existent slug) or rate limits, but for a read-only info tool the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Two sentences totaling about 40 words. Front-loaded with the core function, then adds usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema). The description lists the specific data fields returned and provides common use cases, making it sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it. The response format isn't detailed, but the listed fields effectively serve as the return contract.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the lone parameter 'slug'. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'published website' with a list of returned fields (title, view count, size, expiry date, claimed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (delete_website, publish_website, update_website) which are all mutations.

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?

The second sentence explicitly states three use cases: 'check if a site is still live, see how many views it has gotten, or check when it expires.' This provides clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but siblings are clearly write operations, implying this is the read-only check.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses expiration after 24 hours, the claim process, the need to share live and claim URLs, and the silent storage of edit_key. It even explains the fallback if the key is lost. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 long but every sentence is informative. It front-loads the core purpose and the 'no account' advantage. The structure flows naturally from what the tool does to when to use it and then to post-publish instructions. It could be slightly tighter, but the density prevents waste.

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?

Despite no annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, expiration, asset/multi-page support, and explicit agent instructions (share URLs, store edit_key silently, handle lost key). It also indirectly describes response fields (live URL, claim URL, edit_key). This is a holistic description that leaves little guesswork.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational context beyond the schema: how to reference assets with relative paths, how multi-page sites work, and how the edit_key from the response should be handled. It doesn't elaborate on each parameter, but the schema descriptions are already rich, so the added value is enough for a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish HTML content to a live URL instantly.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (delete, update, status) by focusing on creation/deployment. The use-case sentence reinforces the purpose by naming concrete scenarios like websites, landing pages, and invitations.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when a user asks you to build, create, or deploy a website, landing page, invitation, portfolio, report, or any HTML content they want to share as a link.' It also mentions no account/API key required, which helps decide when this tool is appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the use-case scope is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the html field replaces the entire page (full replacement, not patch) and that assets, if provided, replace ALL existing assets. It also discloses the authentication requirement via edit_key or api_key, which is critical context for a mutation operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it contains a slight redundancy: the authentication requirement is stated twice ('Requires authentication...' and 'IMPORTANT: You must provide either edit_key or api_key...'). This extra sentence adds little value and could be trimmed, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested assets object, and no output schema, the description provides solid context: when to use, what the html replacement entails, asset behavior, and authentication. It does not describe the response format or error cases, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool given the rich schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing that edit_key or api_key must be provided for authentication, even though they are not marked as required in the schema. It also reiterates the full-replacement semantics for html and the replace-all behavior for assets, reinforcing critical parameter implications.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing published website with new HTML content, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing published website'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on modifying a previously published site, as opposed to creating (publish_website), deleting (delete_website), or checking status (get_website_status).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks you to modify, edit, or change a site you previously published,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context implies it is for existing sites, which differentiates it from publish_website.

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