sitebay_delete_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation ('permanently', 'cannot be undone'), which is crucial for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that might be relevant.

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 extremely well-structured and concise. It begins with the core action and critical warning, then provides organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the irreversible nature, documents the single parameter thoroughly, mentions the return value format, and the existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. This is complete enough for safe tool invocation.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'fqdn' with a clear explanation ('The fully qualified domain name of the site to delete'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, making the parameter's purpose and format clear.

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 specific action ('Delete a WordPress site permanently') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sitebay_get_site, sitebay_update_site, and sitebay_create_site by emphasizing the irreversible destructive nature. It provides a verb+resource combination that is unambiguous.

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 ('Delete a WordPress site permanently') and includes a critical warning ('This action cannot be undone'), which helps differentiate it from less destructive alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name specific sibling tools as alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the permanence warning.

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