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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. However, it adds nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether DNS records or TLS certs are released, whether traffic stops immediately, or whether the domain can be re-added.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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, irreversible-feeling mutation with no output schema, the description should state consequences and post-conditions (e.g., DNS/TLS teardown, effect on live traffic). Annotations cover the safety flag but not the operational impact, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100% with two well-documented required parameters (project_id, domain_id). The description adds no extra meaning about identifier formats or lookup behavior, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Detach a custom domain') scoped to a 'DenkOps project', so the operation is unambiguous. It does not contrast with siblings such as add_domain, verify_domain, or list_domains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g., verify_domain first, or add_domain/add_domain to re-attach), and no stated prerequisites or warnings. An agent must infer everything about timing and sequencing from the name alone.

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