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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add consequence detail — which it does well: 'Every short link already sent on it stops working' tells the agent this breaks live traffic, not just config. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether recovery is possible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded right after the action. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: the action, the target, and the downstream impact. Only the permanence/reversibility question is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Link domain id'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no meaning about the id's format or source, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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+resource ('Remove a branded link domain') and immediately clarifies the blast radius. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_contact or delete_webhook by naming the exact resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_link_domain/list_link_domains.

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 versus keeping or verifying the domain, and no prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., verify_link_domain, list_link_domains) are named. The warning about links breaking implies caution but is not a usage rule.

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