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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partially covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the owner-approval precondition and the dry-run behavior (returns the existing preview when unconfirmed), which annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences, the primary action front-loaded, and the confirmation/no-charge caveats packed with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key agent concerns: approval gating, dry-run fallback, and absence of billing impact. It omits downstream effects of removing a hostname and any permission requirements, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 50% (only 'confirm' is described). The description's confirm:true wording aligns with the schema rather than extending it, but 'one connected hostname' does add the constraint that the target must already be connected. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (one connected hostname), and the 'no purchase or charge' clause implicitly separates it from soclo_domain_buy. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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 a clear call condition: use with confirm:true only after owner approval, and without confirmation it returns the preview. This is a genuine when-to-commit vs when-to-preview distinction. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or detailing prerequisites (e.g., connected state).

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