Delete Host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a destructive, irreversible operation, whether permissions beyond the user_id are required, whether sitemaps or verification data are also removed, or whether dependent workflows are affected. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and context. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal terseness.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that presumably describes the result, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context an agent would need: confirmatory behavior, prerequisites, side effects on related entities, and error conditions.

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 user_id and host_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the host_id format. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Remove a site from Yandex Webmaster.' It does not differentiate this tool from its inverse sibling add_host, though the operation is fundamentally distinct (remove vs add). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling-specific framing such as naming the counterpart tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives. The description does not clarify prerequisites such as whether the host must exist, whether verification must first be revoked, or what happens to dependent resources (sitemaps, recrawl tasks).

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