delete_site

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the dry-run mode, the fact that certificates are left alone, that nginx is not reloaded, and that an archived copy can be restored. These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what happens, the confirmation guard, the certificate non-effect, and the nginx reload/restore caveats. It is slightly dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 an output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary operational context: how to actually trigger deletion, what is not affected, what to do after, and how to undo. No important gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described in the JSON schema itself. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's dry-run semantics but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('nginx server block for a domain'), and ties in the related actions 'disable' and 'archive'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like delete_cert and revoke_cert by scoping to the nginx server block only.

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?

Explicitly states the confirm:true requirement and the dry-run behavior without it, explains that certbot certificates are untouched, says nginx is NOT reloaded and directs the agent to call reload_nginx afterward, and mentions restore_site as the reversal path. This fully routes the agent to the correct workflow.

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