delete_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by clearly stating that the site and everything under it will be deleted, making the destructive scope obvious. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility or required permissions, but for a deletion tool this is strong transparency.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, identifies the target resource, and adds the critical scope detail without waste.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the description covers the most important contextual fact: deletion cascades to everything under the site. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. Minor gaps are irreversibility and explicit confirmation behavior, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not mention the slug parameter at all. The parameter name 'slug' offers minimal inferable meaning, but the description fails to define what a slug is, its format, or how it identifies the target site.

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 action verb, 'Delete', with a clear resource, 'a rendered site and everything under it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site, render_site, and remove_section by making the destructive, site-wide scope explicit.

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 phrase 'and everything under it' implies this is for full-site deletion rather than targeted removal, which is relevant compared to siblings like remove_section. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as the site needing to already exist.

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