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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds the constraint that only pending purchases can be removed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, impact on related data) or error behavior if a registered domain is attempted. The description adds some context beyond the annotation but not extensive.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the critical constraint. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and applicability, but lacks guidance on how to specify the domain (parameter usage) and what happens on error or success (though an output schema exists). For a destructive tool, the agent would benefit from knowing prerequisites and failure modes. The description is adequate for a simple delete but leaves important operational details unaddressed.

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%: companyId has a description, domain does not. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify the role of 'domain' in the operation. Since domain is optional in the schema, it is unclear whether it is needed to identify the specific attempt. The description does not compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action (removes) and the specific resource (an abandoned pending domain purchase attempt) from the company's domain list. It also distinguishes from registered domains, which prevents confusion with other domain operations. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose that separates it from sibling tools like formation_get_domain_order or formation_set_selected_domain.

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 explicitly states when it can be used (only pending, never-completed purchases) and when it cannot (registered domains). This provides clear applicability boundaries. It does not name an alternative tool for registered domain deletion, but given the sibling list, none exists, so the exclusion is sufficient.

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