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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is provided structurally. The description adds the custom-domain connection scope and version requirement but does not add details about irreversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no waste. The usage condition is front-loaded, the workflow pointer follows, and the version note supports the required mcp_version parameter.

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 destructive tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and sibling instructions, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, parameters, and workflow pointer. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly warn about the destructive nature or confirmation requirements, though annotations already flag that context.

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 100%, so app_id, domain, and mcp_version are already documented. The description mentions app_id, domain, and MCP version 2.12, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 removal action for a specific resource: 'removal of that custom-domain connection' using app_id and domain. This clearly distinguishes it from add_custom_domain and verify_custom_domain without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: call this when the user requests removal of the custom-domain connection. It also routes the agent to get_custom_domain_instructions for usage and workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative deletion paths.

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