Delete Site

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains cascading deletes in detail, provides concrete examples (deleting a device removes its interfaces, etc.), and states 'no undo.' It also mentions the HTTP 204 response. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 well-structured: an initial concise purpose, a cautionary block with cascading examples, and a note on return value. The examples, while detailed, are essential for understanding the destructive impact. Slightly longer than necessary but justified.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and absence of output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, required id, destructive nature, cascading effects, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by numeric id' reinforces the parameter but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric id of the site to delete.'

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 'Delete a site from NetBox by numeric id,' specifying the verb and resource. It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_site, netbox_create_site, and netbox_update_site, which are non-destructive or create/update operations.

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?

Explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and advises 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This tells the agent when to use (only after user confirmation) and when not to (without confirmation). The cascading delete examples also help the agent understand the broader impact.

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