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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutating/destructive behavior, and the description's 'Remove' is consistent with that. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as irreversibility, impact on domain usage, or auth/rate-limit considerations, but because the annotations already carry the safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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?

Exactly one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and the needed input with no filler. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with a destructiveHint annotation, a 100% covered schema, a referenced source for the ID, and an output schema. Nothing essential is missing; the description plus structured metadata fully specifies the call.

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%: domain_id is fully defined and its source (list_domains) is documented in the schema. The description's 'by its ID' repeats that idea but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('custom domain') and adds the required identifier ('by its ID'), so an agent can distinguish it from add_domain and list_domains. It is not merely a restatement of the title.

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 intended use is implied: to delete a custom domain, pass its ID; the parameter description's reference to list_domains suggests the prerequisite workflow. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so the agent must infer the context.

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