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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the concrete consequence: custom hostnames are detached and the slug becomes available again for reuse.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and consequence in two tight sentences. The trailing 'Inputs: slug and token' duplicates the fully-covered schema and is the one sentence that doesn't 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key consequence (irreversibility and hostname detachment), and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error/return behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 both slug and token are already documented in the schema (including the deed_tok_ prefix and Authorization fallback). The description's 'Inputs: slug and token' merely restates them without adding meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (permanently removes) and resource (a slug owned by the token), and even names the side effect (detaching custom hostnames). An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_site, update_site, or restore_version.

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 permanence is implied by 'Permanently removes,' which signals when this is appropriate versus the reversible restore_version. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative is given, leaving the agent to infer that deletion should precede restore_version.

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