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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the side effect that new messages return to the platform origin and that existing links remain pointed at the removed host, which is important behavioral information for a destructive-sounding operation. It does not discuss authorization or irreversibility, but the stated behavior is materially transparent.

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 phrase 'Links already sent keep pointing at the removed host' is repeated verbatim, and the second sentence merely restates the first clause with a colon. This redundancy wastes tokens and violates the principle that every sentence should earn its place, even though the overall length is short.

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 single-parameter removal tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what gets removed, what happens to new messages, and what happens to already-sent links. Some details like confirmation output or prerequisites are absent, but the operation is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with organization_id described as 'Active organization ID'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource ('Remove the tracking domain') and states the immediate consequence ('NEW messages go back to the platform origin'). It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like tracking_domain_create and tracking_domain_verify by focusing on removal and its effect.

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 conveys the key usage context: this operation stops new messages but does not change already-sent links. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral boundary between 'new' and 'old' messages gives an agent enough context to decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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