htmldrop_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail: 'Once deleted the public URL returns 404 immediately,' which informs the agent of the immediate, observable effect. This goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 long, with the primary action stated first and the clarifying detail second. Every word adds value: the id-source clarification prevents misuse, and the 404 note sets expectations. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has annotations covering safety (destructive/idempotent) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the only ambiguity (which id to use) and adds the immediate 404 behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter completely (100% coverage), giving the baseline of 3. The description enhances this by explaining that the id is an 'opaque string' and explicitly warning against using the slug, which is not present in the schema's description. This added semantic distinction justifies a score above the baseline.

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 and object: 'Delete a site by its id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like htmldrop_list (which lists sites) and htmldrop_publish (which publishes). It further clarifies that the id is an opaque string from htmldrop_list, not the slug, removing ambiguity about the resource identifier.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need to delete a site. It also gives practical guidance on which id to pass (the opaque string from htmldrop_list, not the slug). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and the id-source clarification is a strong usage cue.

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