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

Annotations already cover destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: the not_released error condition, the required credential scope, and the 403 refusal for sandbox keys. However it never says whether the domain record itself survives detachment or whether the action is recoverable, which is the key unknown for a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the action statement front-loaded before the gating conditions and error codes.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the failure modes and auth prerequisites an agent needs to call it successfully. The remaining gap is post-condition behavior: what happens to the domain record and what a success response looks like.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters document their own provenance (list_storefronts, add_storefront_domain), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the ids beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Stop serving a storefront on one of your domains' clearly denotes detaching a domain binding, distinct from delete_storefront or update_storefront. It never names the adjacent tools (remove_storefront_dns_record, delete_storefront), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: storefronts must be switched on in the workspace (else not_released), the key needs workspace settings write scope, and the workspace must be claimed. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to delete the whole storefront instead.

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