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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "interrupt its traffic" adds a real consequence beyond the annotations, but the description says nothing about immediacy, irreversibility, DNS record cleanup, or whether the domain can be re-added.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, though it is arguably over-compressed for a destructive eight-parameter tool. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is expanded where it would help.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and an approval_id parameter hinting at an approval workflow, the description is far too thin. It never mentions the approval gate, the context parameters, or what happens to traffic on removal.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description offers no parameter guidance at all. The required `id` and the seven optional beon_*/approval_id context parameters are left entirely for the agent to infer from names and patterns.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Remove) with a specific resource (custom domain), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as railway_create_custom_domain, railway_delete_service_domain, and railway_delete_project. It stops short of clarifying whether the target is a project-scoped or service-scoped 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?

No statement of when to use this versus railway_delete_service_domain or the Supabase/Vercel domain-removal siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely 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.