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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation, yet it never says whether deletion is permanent, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are required, or what 'checking remaining files' actually returns or does. The brief note about verifying leftover files is the only behavioral detail, and it is too vague to guide safe invocation.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded, so there is no filler. However, the second sentence is vague and reads like an internal changelog note rather than useful specification, which weakens the otherwise efficient structure.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should explain prerequisites, reversibility, and return behavior; it covers none of these. Only the core action is conveyed, leaving real operational risk unaddressed.

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 two required parameters, slug and path, so the description must compensate — but it only implies that 'path' targets a file or folder and says nothing about 'slug' (presumably the site identifier). An agent must guess parameter meaning from names alone.

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 gives a specific verb+resource in Russian: 'Удалить файл или папку с сайта' (delete a file or folder from the site), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vebhost_read_file, vebhost_write_file, and vebhost_delete_site. The trailing note about being a 'new version' with remaining-file checking adds little to purpose but doesn't obscure it.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given — nothing tells the agent how this differs from vebhost_delete_site or that deletion applies to individual files rather than the whole site. The phrase 'проверка оставшихся файлов' hints at post-delete verification but doesn't state when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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