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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that both the deployment and served files are deleted, and that only owned sites can be deleted. This is useful for the agent to understand the scope and ownership requirement.

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 a single 9-word sentence that efficiently states the action and object with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description states the basic action, it omits critical operational details such as the purpose of confirmSite, potential irreversibility beyond the annotation, and any side effects hinted by openWorldHint. For a destructive tool, this is a significant 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 schema provides no descriptions for the two required parameters, and the tool description does not explain 'site' or 'confirmSite.' The confirmSite parameter is crucial for confirmation semantics but is completely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 deletes an owned TON Site deployment and served files, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sites.rollback and sites.publish_files by indicating deletion of the deployment and files.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like rollback, but it implies usage through the verb 'delete' and the 'owned' precondition. No direct exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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