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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: QR codes on the domain stop resolving. It does not say whether the unbinding is reversible, whether the QR codes themselves are deleted, or what permissions are 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?

Two terse sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the consequence. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 mutation with no output schema this covers the essential effect on downstream QR codes, but leaves open irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether the domain record is removed or merely unlinked. Adequate but with clear gaps for a one-way operation.

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 0% and the description does not mention the single 'id' parameter at all. The agent must infer from the schema name and uuid format that this is the domain identifier; the description contributes no compensating semantics.

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 (unbind) and resource (custom domain), and distinguishes itself from siblings like domains_update, domains_verify, and domains_list by describing removal. The second sentence clarifies the scope of the operation's effect.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives; the description never says whether to prefer domains_update for configuration changes or how this differs from other domains_* operations. The consequence sentence hints at the decision context but stops short of explicit routing.

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