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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about what is destroyed (DNS records, verification state, custom-domain routing), whether it can be undone, or how long removal takes to propagate. It essentially restates the title.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at four words it is nearly a restatement of the title rather than an informative sentence. This is under-specification rather than excessive length.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and one undocumented required parameter, the description should explain irreversible effects, the domain_id format, and the project scoping fallback. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but domain_id has no description at all, and the description does not compensate by saying whether it accepts a domain name versus an opaque id or how to obtain it. An agent must open the schema and still guess at domain_id's expected format.

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 verb plus resource ("Remove a custom domain"), which is enough to distinguish it from add_domain, list_domains, and verify_domain by name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from set_primary_domain or explain the relationship to the broader domain lifecycle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_primary_domain, verify_domain, or simply leaving the domain unverified. No preconditions (e.g., must the domain be unverified or non-primary first) and no note about irreversibility are given.

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