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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It only states the basic action and a prerequisite. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, any side effects on the site, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the key.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices critical information for brevity. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the overall conciseness results in under-specification.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify input semantics, success/failure indicators, or what happens post-detachment. For a tool with three required parameters and no additional schema richness, more detail is needed.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any of the three parameters ('key', 'name', 'domain'). The phrase 'from a site the key owns' vaguely relates 'key' to ownership, but 'name' and 'domain' remain completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to fill in the parameters correctly.

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 (disconnect) and resource (custom domain from a site owned by the key). It distinguishes from the sibling 'attach_domain' by using 'disconnect' and 'custom domain'. Could be improved by specifying that the site must own the domain, but overall it is specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'Requires a key' as a prerequisite but does not advise on scenarios where detaching is appropriate or warnings about consequences. Lacks when-not-to-use context.

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