Delete a site

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuine context beyond those by disclosing that deletion 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires an operator write opt-in. This gives the agent a real sense of blast radius without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, body, reference, then side effects. Every fragment earns its place; the only minor flaw is the reference URL running into the next clause without clear separation.

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 output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, body absence, authorization prerequisite, and user-visible side effects, and links to full API docs. It does not describe the success response or reversibility, which are modest gaps for a delete 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 coverage is 67%, with confirm and path.siteID described in the schema (confirm via const:true, siteID via minLength). The description adds 'Body fields: none,' confirming agents need not send a body, but it does not elaborate on siteID semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource ('Delete a site') and adds the exact REST endpoint (DELETE /api/xm/1/sites/{siteID}), making the operation unambiguous against siblings like get_a_site, create_a_site, and modify_a_site. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose, and the description adds important preconditions ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true') that tell an agent when the call will be permitted. It never names sibling alternatives (e.g., modify_a_site) or says when not to delete, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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