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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the site stays online, and the user must pass the domain again in a confirm field. This discloses the confirmation mechanism and mitigates the destructive implication, which is genuinely useful for safe invocation.

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 deliver the core action, a key consequence, and the confirmation requirement with zero fluff. The action verb is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. This is an appropriately sized definition for a simple tool.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the description is largely complete: it states the effect and the confirmation step. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, that is not a critical gap. Minor missing context like prerequisites (domain must be currently connected) prevents a 5.

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 the schema already fully documents the 'domain' and 'confirm' parameters. The description's 'Pass the domain again in confirm' essentially restates the schema's 'Repeat the domain to confirm', adding no new semantic value. This matches the baseline of 3 for high 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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Disconnect a custom domain', and clarifies the scope by stating the site remains online at its Hostlo address. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site, add_domain, or list_domains without needing to inspect schemas. The action and its boundary are unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: call this when you want to detach a custom domain from a site. It adds valuable context—the site is not taken offline—which helps an agent understand the practical effect. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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