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.