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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the observable effect ('the help center stops answering at that address') and the recovery cost (re-adding requires fresh DNS verification), which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the consequence following. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover destructiveness and non-idempotency, the description supplies the effect and reversal cost. The only minor gap is not pointing to the tool that yields a valid domainId.

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% for the single domainId parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about which id to supply or where to obtain it (e.g., list_help_center_domains), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect a custom domain from the help center.' The help-center scoping cleanly separates it from the similarly named remove_mail_domain and remove_redirect siblings, though it does not name those siblings explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, and the description adds a useful consequence ('adding it again needs new DNS verification') that tells the agent this is not trivially reversible. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance despite siblings like set_primary_help_center_domain and check_help_center_domain existing.

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