delete_website

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's destructive ('删除' - delete), irreversible ('不可撤销' - irreversible), and affects all associated files ('及其所有文件' - and all its files). It also includes a safety warning. The only gap is lack of information about permissions needed or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the critical warning. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately positioned for emphasis without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering the irreversible nature and scope of deletion. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message) or failure (e.g., error if website doesn't exist), which would be helpful given the high-stakes nature of the operation.

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 100% with the single parameter 'websiteId' documented as '要删除的网站 ID' (website ID to delete). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('删除指定的网站及其所有文件' - delete specified website and all its files) and the resource ('网站' - website), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_website (read) and deploy_website (create/update) by focusing on permanent removal.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('删除指定的网站' - delete specified website) and includes an important caution ('此操作不可撤销，请谨慎使用' - this operation is irreversible, use with caution). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like using get_website first to verify.

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