delete_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals immediate link death, 30-day retention, permanent destruction after that, non-recoverability, already_deleted idempotency, and the restorable_until field semantics. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive tool.

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 dense but every sentence carries critical operational information: consequences, restore behavior, free-plan implications, idempotency, and response handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then layers necessary caveats. No filler is present.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key context an agent needs: what happens to the URL, what happens to the content, restore semantics, plan-specific behavior, already-deleted handling, and how to read the response. It is unusually complete for a mutation tool and leaves little room for dangerous assumptions.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not directly explain the id_or_slug parameter. It mentions 'id' and 'slug' in the context of restore_site, which offers some indirect signal, but it never states that the parameter accepts either a page ID or slug or how to obtain them. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but largely leaves parameter semantics to the property name.

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 clear, specific action: 'Take a page down.' It unambiguously names the resource (a page/site) and the operation (delete/unpublish), and it differentiates delete_site from the sibling restore_site by describing the delete-and-restore lifecycle. An agent can immediately tell this tool exists to make a page unavailable.

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 gives strong usage direction: it explicitly mentions restore_site as the recovery alternative, emphasizes that this is not a preview, and instructs the agent to tell the user the link stops working now. It also explains the 30-day restore window and the free-plan slot consequence, so an agent knows when deletion is appropriate and what caveats to communicate.

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