Delete Site

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important detail: deletion is permanent and removes replay data too. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what will be destroyed, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to proceed.

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 sentences carry the operation, the permanent consequence, and the ID-lookup guidance with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly. It even tells the agent where to obtain the required ID, which closes the only likely ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already documents siteId at 100% coverage with the description 'Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)'. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a site from Rybbit'), and a precise scope ('permanently removes the site and its replay data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_update_site_config or rybbit_create_site without any ambiguity.

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?

The description gives clear context by labeling the operation as deletion and explicitly tells the agent to use rybbit_list_sites or rybbit_get_site_id to find site IDs. It does not enumerate alternative tools because none are direct alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable and sufficient.

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