combell_linux_hostings_subsites_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the concrete consequence: the website stops being served while files remain on disk. This is valuable behavioral detail beyond what the annotations convey.

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, purposeful sentences. The action is front-loaded and the side effect is isolated as a clear warning. No filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter destructive action, the description plus annotations cover the core safety and behavioral concerns. The main gap is the undocumented domain_name parameter, which the description does not help clarify.

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?

Only site_name has a schema description; domain_name is undocumented. The prose does not explain the relationship between the two parameters or clarify what domain_name refers to. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a subsite from a Linux hosting'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like combell_linux_hostings_subsites_create and other resource-specific delete 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 makes the intended operation obvious and the SIDE EFFECT note adds decision-relevant context: use this when you want the website to stop being served but keep the files on disk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls just short of the highest level.

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