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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond that: it names what is destroyed (the domain_controls row), the observable consequence (the room stops being served), ownership scoping, and the required login. It stops short of stating irreversibility or recovery options.

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-loads the verb and resource, then packs effect, ownership, auth, and backend into a few clauses. Dense but every clause carries information; the backend note ('murl-manage EF') is the only marginally useful addition.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, ownership, auth requirements, and backend routing, with the schema handling the parameter format. Nothing material is missing.

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 it already explains the per-URL keying in detail. The description's 'DOMAIN channel' phrasing hints at domain-vs-page scope, but adds little syntax or interpretation beyond the schema 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 (Delete) and resource (mURL DOMAIN channel) and immediately clarifies the effect: removes its domain_controls row and the room stops being served. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mURL_create, mURL_update, and mURL_read_channel.

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 clear preconditions — you must own the channel and hold a mosADD login session. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use (e.g., to take a room offline without deleting), so it falls short of the top bar.

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