Reset a website (delete all data)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses what is destroyed, what is preserved, that the action is irreversible, that confirm=true is required, and that data collection restarts fresh. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 summary is front-loaded and the Args/Returns/Examples structure is clear and easy to scan. The irreversibility warning is repeated a few times across the description and schema, but for a destructive action this emphasis is acceptable rather than wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides the return shape, an example, and clear statements of effect and guardrail. The main gap is the inconsistent required status of the website parameter and no explicit mention of the default-website fallback behavior.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, but the description adds a helpful explicit example. However, it labels website as required while the schema says it is optional if UMAMI_DEFAULT_WEBSITE is set, which directly contradicts the input schema and could cause an agent to demand a value unnecessarily.

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?

Description opens with a specific destructive action: 'Permanently delete all collected data for a website' and enumerates exactly which data types are affected (pageviews, sessions, events). It explicitly notes that the website registration and tracking ID are kept, which distinguishes it from umami_delete_website and prevents confusion with sibling tools.

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 a concrete use case ('Wipe the test data we collected before going live') and clearly states the confirm=true requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but preserving the registration implicitly differentiates it from full deletion, which is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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