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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (files, versions and address), that the action is irreversible, and that the address stays reserved for 30 days, which is important recovery-window context. It does not mention permissions or confirmation requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, with the destructive scope stated before the irreversibility and retention caveats.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the consequences and recovery window well. The remaining gap is identifying the parameter, which is the only thing an agent must get right to call it.

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% and the single required parameter 'slug' is never mentioned in the description, so nothing clarifies that the site to delete is identified by a slug or what form it takes. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 plus resource with scope: delete a published site entirely, including files, versions and address. The word 'целиком' (entirely) implicitly separates it from vebhost_delete_file, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: the tool removes a whole site, so an agent can infer this is not for single-file removal, and the irreversibility warning signals caution. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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