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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses key behaviors: the deletion is irreversible, the site stops opening at its address, and a custom domain remains in the account while its association is removed. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but the most important side effects are transparent.

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 tightly written sentences: the first communicates the core destructive action and result, the second handles the important domain edge case. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: permanence, effect on the site's URL, and the domain exception. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, though it could mention what the agent should expect in response.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that page_id is the site identifier from htmlkin_publish. The description only restates 'по идентификатору', adding little beyond the structured parameter definition.

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 a specific action ('Безвозвратно удаляет ранее опубликованный сайт') with the resource and effect. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like htmlkin_publish and htmlkin_update by emphasizing deletion and irreversibility.

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 use case is clear: use this when a previously published site must be permanently removed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the deletion purpose is distinct enough from the sibling tools that no ambiguity remains.

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