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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that the domain remains with its registrar and that the operation takes two steps, but it does not explain what those two steps are, whether site downtime occurs, or what confirmation is required.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key caveat that the domain stays with its registrar.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive three-parameter mutation, the description gives the high-level effect and one important caveat, but it omits the two-step confirmation process and confirm_token semantics, leaving key operational details to be inferred.

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 only 33%, with only hostname having a description. The description adds no meaning for site or confirm_token, and does not explain how confirm_token relates to the 'two steps' despite that being the most important parameter for a destructive operation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: disconnecting a custom domain from a site. It is clearly distinct from add_domain and get_domains, though it does not explicitly contrast with transfer_site or other domain-related siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'disconnects a custom domain from a site' and the note that the domain stays with its registrar, which suggests retaining ownership while detaching from the site. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus transfer_site or other alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites.

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