Delete a site

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: explicit irreversibility ('Nothing here undoes it'), the concrete consequence that the subdomain becomes claimable by anyone, and the refuse-on-mismatch guardrail behavior.

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?

Front-loads the permanence and consequence before the confirm mechanics, so the most decision-relevant fact lands first. Slightly long but every clause carries distinct information (scope, irreversibility, subdomain consequence, confirm protocol).

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; annotations cover the safety profile; schema covers both params. The description fills the remaining gap — permanence, real-world consequence, and the confirm protocol — leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the confirm description covers the mismatch-refusal. The description adds workflow meaning the schema lacks — that the confirm value should be solicited from the user rather than supplied from prior knowledge.

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 and resource ('takes a site down permanently') plus the full blast radius — files, history, subdomain. An agent can distinguish this from list_sites (read) and the publish_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives strong procedural guidance for the confirm step (ask the person rather than volunteering the value), which is genuinely useful usage direction. However, it never routes the agent to or away from alternatives (e.g. list_sites to identify the target) and offers no explicit when-not-to-use framing.

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