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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: removing a subdomain with sub_website deletes its folder with all files irreversibly, bestaetigung must be exactly the customer-typed FQDN and must never be filled in by the agent, and the panel chat requires a confirmation click. It also instructs relaying the response verbatim.

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-loaded with the action and the destructive warning follows immediately; every clause carries operational meaning. The first sentence's parenthetical is dense and slightly hard to parse, which keeps it from a 5.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers everything needed: irreversibility and what gets deleted, the confirmation prerequisite, which inputs are rejected, the sibling tool to use instead, and how to handle the response. An agent can invoke it correctly without further information.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description maps the parameters to their domain meaning (hauptdomain = the package's domain, name = the forwarding domain or full subdomain name) and clarifies the exact confirmation semantics. It adds modest value on top of the schema rather than full syntax detail.

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 (entfernt) and the exact resource class: redirects/subdomains previously created with add_domain, not arbitrary domains. It explicitly scopes out sibling cases — domains assigned via "Domain zuordnen" and staging addresses are rejected, and older redirects belong to remove_domain_redirect — so an agent can distinguish it from remove_domain_redirect without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (only what add_domain created) and when-not (assigned domains, staging addresses rejected), plus the correct alternative by name for legacy redirects: remove_domain_redirect. It also states the mandatory prerequisite of a customer-typed confirmation for subdomains with their own website.

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