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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description isn't required to prove the write is destructive. It still adds real value by naming the downstream damage ('anything printed with the old domain on it stops working') and the resulting state, which annotations cannot express. It does not mention propagation timing or whether detaching is reversible.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the caution placed after the consequence it justifies. 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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the agent needs only the effect and the risk warning, both of which are supplied, plus the annotation-driven safety profile. The only gap is the absence of an explicit alternative tool to consult when detaching is the wrong move.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the description carries no parameter burden and none is needed. Nothing in the description contradicts or duplicates a parameter contract.

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 the custom domain') plus the resulting state (page reverts to its kulhad.co address), which makes the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like set_custom_domain or get_custom_domain, but the verb choice alone separates it from them.

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 consequence statement and the caution to 'confirm with the creator first', which functions as a soft prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., remove vs. verify vs. set), so an agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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