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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains what is actually affected: LivePage pages stop opening, paths are cleared, the slot is freed, and DNS records may subsequently be deleted. It also discloses the permission boundary and the exact-confirmation guard, which is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before invocation.

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 front-loaded with the action and its consequences, followed by permission, confirmation, and cleanup notes. Every sentence contributes operational information, with no wasted framing.

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 domain-unbinding tool with complete schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining operational context: exact effects, owner restriction, exact-match confirmation, user confirmation before calling, and DNS cleanup. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the baseline parameter documentation. The description adds meaningful semantics for confirm by explaining that it must be the domain typed exactly and that this guards against unbinding the wrong one; hostname and domain_id are left to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Unbind a custom domain', and immediately states the concrete effects: the domain stops opening LivePage pages, paths are cleared, and the slot is freed. This makes it unmistakably distinct from bind_domain and the related domain setters.

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?

It gives important usage context: workspace-owner-only permission, the exact-match confirm requirement, and the instruction to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly route to siblings such as list_domains for finding a domain_id or bind_domain for the reverse operation, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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