remove_party_website_by_id

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

The description provides detailed behavioral transparency: it states the operation is atomic and reversible, idempotent on retry, and gives the exact response format for fresh and repeated removes. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) are consistent with the described behavior.

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 fairly concise, front-loading the action and providing essential details in a single paragraph. It could be slightly more compact, but it efficiently conveys necessary information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description provides the response format and idempotency behavior. It covers key aspects like how to discover the id and reversibility. Missing details about error handling or required parameters are minor gaps, but overall it's fairly complete for a simple removal tool with good annotations.

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 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that websiteId is the row id from get_party and implying partyId is the party identifier. It compensates well for the missing partyId schema description.

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 tool removes a website entry from a party by row id. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_party_address_by_id by specifying 'website' and 'by row id'.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool, how to discover the required websiteId via get_party, and notes that no confirm gate is needed and re-adding is possible with add_party_website. It also explains idempotency on retry, providing clear usage context.

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