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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses irreversibility ('deletion cannot be undone'), immediate unavailability, authentication requirements ('edit_key or api_key'), and the confirm:true safety mechanism. This exceeds what the schema alone communicates.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect. Every sentence adds essential information: irreversibility, ack of immediate impact, auth requirement, confirm mechanism, and usage instruction. No filler or redundant detail.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical context: purpose, irreversibility, immediate impact, authentication prerequisites, required confirmation, and when to use. It appropriately emphasizes the safety barrier. No significant gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that authentication requires either edit_key or api_key — a constraint not explicit in the parameter schemas (which list them as optional). It also reinforces that confirm must be true as a safety mechanism, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 the tool's action: 'Permanently delete a published website.' It specifies the resource (published website) and the effect (immediately inaccessible), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_website_status, publish_website, and update_website.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a user explicitly asks you to remove or delete a site.' It also includes a critical safety instruction to 'Always confirm with the user before calling this tool.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope of use is clear and unambiguous.

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