deleteSiteAudit

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the permanent consequences: results disappear, history and trend are affected, and re-running produces a new audit that does not restore the old one. It also adds a user-confirmation requirement, which is critical for a destructive operation. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of irreversibility and the confirm-with-user instruction. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description is fully complete: it states what is deleted, the irreversible nature, the impact on history and trend, and the need for user confirmation. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value explanation is not a gap.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for auditId ('The audit to delete.') with 100% coverage. The description reiterates that the exact named audit should be deleted, which adds minimal extra meaning. It does not introduce new parameter details, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (audit), and the full scope (all results, page scores, issues, fix items). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like deleteFixItem or startSiteAudit, as it explicitly targets audits and their associated data.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (to permanently delete an audit) and includes a safety instruction to confirm with the user before deleting. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of 'audit' versus other tools makes the usage unambiguous.

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