rybbit_delete_site

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full weight. It mentions 'permanently', indicating irreversibility, but does not disclose what gets destroyed (site data, associated analytics, user access), any auth requirements, or whether the operation cascades to related resources. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'Delete site' identifies the action/object, and 'permanently' conveys a key behavioral trait.

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 one-parameter delete, the description is minimally viable: it states the action and irreversibility. However, it omits crucial context such as what happens to dependent data, whether confirmation is needed, and any return value. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more detail would be expected.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for siteId with 'Site ID or identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning about how to obtain the siteId or any format expectations. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('site'), clearly distinguishing it from the many read-only sibling tools like rybbit_get_site and also from other delete tools like rybbit_delete_user. It states exactly what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rybbit_update_site for modifications or archiving. It also fails to mention prerequisites like ownership/permissions or that deletion is irreversible beyond the word 'permanently', which is only hinted.

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