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

Annotations only say destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond that by spelling out exactly what breaks (every page URL 404s immediately, HTTPS cert released), what survives (pages remain at their {name}.convika.page paths), and the main-URL fallback behavior, including that some pages only update on next publish.

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?

Front-loaded trigger sentence, then effects, then a 'Before calling it' checklist, then the alternative — a well-structured progression. It is longer than strictly needed (the parenthetical Japanese trigger list and the repeated domain examples add bulk), but each block carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by noting the result lists stoppedUrls. Combined with consequences, prerequisites, and the sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive tool safely.

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% and the single 'domain' parameter already documents that it accepts an id or hostname such as www.example.com. The description adds scope ('one connected site' from this workspace) but no new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 or disconnect a custom domain ... from Convika'), scopes it to one connected site, and lists multilingual user phrasings that map to the intent. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling disable_domain_route by naming it explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (call list_domain_routes and surface the affected URLs, obtain explicit user confirmation, warn about the root domain's A record) plus a clear routing rule: use disable_domain_route to stop a single path instead. Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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