Delete a site

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable nuance: the action is a move to trash (non-permanent), requires ownership/privileges, and returns a deletion confirmation. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured flags.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Move an existing remote artifact to the trash'), followed by exclusions, a verification tip, and privilege/return info. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle: what it does, when to use, what it is not for, how to avoid mistakes, required privileges, and the return outcome. With comprehensive schema and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

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% and each parameter (slug, tenant_id, share_token) has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

States a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('remote artifact/site'), and the precise action ('move to trash'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from upload cancellation and share-link hiding. The scope is unambiguous and clearly differentiates from siblings like artifact_site_move and artifact_site_upload_cancel.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user explicitly asks to delete it'), when-not-to-use (not upload cancellation, not hiding share link), and a verification step ('Verify the intended artifact using find/get_site when ambiguous'). This fully guides an agent on selection and pre-call checks.

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