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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new consequences: permanence, hostname detachment, and the slug becoming reusable. It does not cover auth failure modes or how to recover a deleted site, so it stops short of a 5.

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 irreversible consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence and the total length is three short sentences. The final 'Inputs: slug and token' line is redundant with the schema and does not earn its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key consequences (permanent, hostnames detached, slug freed). Missing only failure behavior, such as what happens when the slug does not exist or the token is invalid.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The trailing 'Inputs: slug and token' merely restates parameter names and adds no semantics beyond the schema's own ownership and bearer-token text.

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 ('Permanently removes a slug'), and adds distinguishing detail that it detaches custom hostnames, which separates it from remove_domain and delete_webhook. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by 'permanently removes ... owned by the token', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_site or set_site_access for non-destructive changes.

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