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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds material context beyond those flags: visitors stop reaching the site immediately, the site remains on its default address, and reconnection requires re-claiming and re-verifying. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by immediate consequences and reconnection implications. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effects an agent needs: immediate visitor impact, retained default address, and costly reconnection. The only minor gap is not naming the alternative claim/verify tools explicitly.

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%, so both site_id and user_goal are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about either parameter, which is acceptable given the high coverage but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Disconnect the site's custom domain') that clearly separates it from sibling tools like claim_domain and verify_domain. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 makes the operational context clear and notes that reconnecting requires claiming and verifying again, which implicitly points to the sibling tools. It stops short of explicitly naming claim_domain or stating when-not to use this tool, so it is clear but not fully directive.

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