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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most critical trait — permanence and irreversibility — which is genuinely valuable, but says nothing about permission requirements, cascading effects on child content, or what a successful response contains.

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 tight sentences with the destructive action front-loaded and the irreversibility caveat immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive, irreversible mutation with zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the required site_id scoping and any auth or permission expectations that an agent must satisfy before calling.

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% for both parameters. The description only implies 'article_id' via 'by its ID' and never mentions 'site_id' at all, despite it being required, leaving the second parameter completely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource ('delete an article (blog or help) by its ID') and clarifies the two content types it applies to. The verb 'Delete' naturally distinguishes it from Edit_Article and Write_Article, but the description never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no routing to Edit_Article for non-destructive changes, and no statement of prerequisites such as required permissions or article state. The only hint at selection criteria is the irreversibility warning, which is a consequence rather than a usage rule.

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