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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete consequence beyond the annotations: outbound sending from the domain stops immediately, which tells the agent what blast radius to expect. It still omits whether deletion fails when the domain is attached to campaigns or whether related records cascade.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded and the operational consequence second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already carry the safety flags, the description covers what is destroyed and the immediate side effect. It leaves out dependency/cascade behavior and any undone-state warning, which an agent confirming a destructive action would still want.

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 a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already identifies it. The description contributes nothing about the identifier (format, source, whether it accepts the domain name instead of the ID), which is the correct baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Permanently delete a domain', which unambiguously separates it from update-domain and verify-domain. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, keeping it just short of 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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of update-domain or verify-domain, nor any prerequisite note (e.g. whether a domain in active use can be deleted). The word 'Permanently' hints at caution but gives no explicit when/when-not rule.

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