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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that deletion is permanent and irreversible, whether any confirmation or permission level is required, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a destructive operation, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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 mutation with no output schema and only half of its parameters documented, the description should carry more weight. It omits return behavior, irreversibility, error conditions, and the relationship between 'site' and 'id', leaving the agent to infer the 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: only 'site' is documented (slug or id), while 'id' has no schema description. The description's 'by id' adds only a minimal hint that the id identifies the record, without clarifying format, scoping to a record collection, or why 'site' is mandatory alongside it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete one record by id'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as delete_collection, delete_page, or delete_site, so the agent must infer from the name alone which entity is being deleted.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like query_records (to find the id first) or add_record, and no mention of prerequisites such as the record existing or the site scope. The only implied usage is 'when you want to delete a record', which is a restatement of the name.

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