Delete a website

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description builds on this by confirming the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and that confirm must be true. It also discloses that all collected data is removed alongside the registration, which is important side-effect information. The idempotentHint annotation is not contradicted by the description.

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 with clear sections (purpose, caveats, args, returns, example) and contains no filler. It packs a warning, an alternative tool, parameter semantics, and return format into a compact block.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed invocation details: parameter formats, confirm constraint, return shape, and a usage example. No critical information for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds guidance on how to discover valid website values (umami_list_websites) and that website is optional when UMAMI_DEFAULT_WEBSITE is set. The 'required' tag on website is slightly inconsistent with the schema, but the subsequent clarification mitigates it. Overall it enriches the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('website registration and all of its collected data'), which clearly states what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'umami_reset_website' by explicitly naming the alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use umami_reset_website instead when the goal is to keep the registration and tracking ID but clear historical data. It also states the hard requirement that confirm=true must be passed, and provides a concrete usage example. This gives clear selection and invocation guidance.

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