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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that registration is untouched, that the action is reversible via domain_attach, and that only owners can perform it. These are key behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects like DNS or traffic, but for a 'stop serving' action this is sufficient.

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 with no redundancy. The action is stated first, followed by essential caveats (registration untouched, reversibility, ownership requirement). Every clause adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, reversibility, and permission requirements. It does not mention error cases or response format, but those are not critical for this action. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 ('Stop serving a domain'), identifies the resource, and distinguishes it from domain_attach by noting the operation is reversible. It also adds a permission constraint ('Owners only'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from sibling tools.

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 gives context about reversibility (domain_attach brings it back) and implies when to use this tool (when you want to stop serving but keep registration). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple operation.

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