infomaniak_delete_site

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that deletion also 'wipes the site directory on the FTP backend after a short grace period' and that the first call is a non-destructive preview. This is significant behavioral context not in annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently adds essential procedure and warning without padding.

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?

Despite being a destructive, two-phase operation, the description covers the action, the phase flow, and the consequence (directory wipe with grace period). Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for all three parameters are already detailed (e.g., confirmation_token explains phase usage). The tool description repeats the token flow but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so it relies on schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a site from an Infomaniak web hosting.' It also clarifies the two-phase commit nature, distinguishing it from single-call tools like infomaniak_delete_site_alias or infomaniak_delete_database.

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 explains the two-phase procedure: first call returns a plan with token, second call with same params + token performs the delete. This gives clear when-to-call context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so not a 5.

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