delete_website

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the operation is permanent ('Permanently delete'), irreversible ('Cannot be undone'), and cascading ('all its resources: storage, CDN, files'). This is strong transparency for a destructive operation, though it doesn't mention prerequisites like domain removal.

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: one sentence stating the core action and scope, a warning about irreversibility, and a practical example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the most critical information (permanence, cascade) is front-loaded.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what gets deleted, that it's irreversible, and an example. It could mention any additional consequences (e.g., domains or analytics), but the broad phrase 'all its resources' covers most expectations, making it sufficiently complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter site_id, describing it as 'The website ID (UUID) to delete'. The description's example uses a natural language site name, which might imply name-to-ID resolution but doesn't explicitly add parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('website'), and explicitly mentions the scope ('all its resources: storage, CDN, files'), distinguishing it from other delete tools in the sibling list like delete_file or delete_contact. The example further clarifies the intended use.

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 through the example 'Delete the website called Test Site', implying the tool's use case without explicit alternative comparisons. It does not mention when-not-to-use or list alternatives, but the resource focus differentiates it well enough from siblings.

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