site_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about what is actually destroyed (files, databases, DNS records?) or whether the action is reversible, which for a destructive tool is a meaningful omission.

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 short lines, action first, then the parameter directive. No waste. The 'Args:' formatting is boilerplate-ish for a single-field tool but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety/read-only signals. Still, for a destructive removal tool the description should say what removal affects and whether it can be undone, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it names site_id and tells the agent to obtain it via site_list. It does not restate the integer type, but the acquisition path is the more valuable information.

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+resource: remove a site from the account ('Убрать сайт из аккаунта'). This is clear enough to distinguish from domain_delete/site_freeze, though it never names those siblings or clarifies what 'removing' entails versus freezing.

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?

It points the agent to site_list as the source of site_id, which is a useful procedural hint. It gives no guidance on when to use this over site_freeze, site_unfreeze, or site_unlink_domain, so usage is only partially implied.

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