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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is gated on an explicit user approval step, which changes how the agent must sequence the call.

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 short sentences with the destructive action front-loaded and the approval constraint second. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the approval gate but leaves parameter meaning and any post-deletion effects (DNS/cert cleanup, propagation) unexplained. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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, so the description bears the burden and adds nothing — it never explains project_ref format, the optional BEON connection/environment fields, or what approval_id does. Only the required/optional split is visible from 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a project custom domain'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like supabase_get_domain and from the initialize/activate domain tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 supplies a critical precondition (user approval of the exact request in BEON PASS), which tells the agent this is not a directly callable mutation. However, it gives no guidance on when to delete vs. deactivate a domain, or when to prefer the equivalent railway/vercel siblings.

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