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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses the ~5 second propagation window, certificate loss, irreversibility, and that re-adding the hostname creates a brand-new record rather than restoring the old one. That last detail is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before confirming a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the first covers effect and irreversibility, the second covers the confirmation gate. The most decision-relevant fact (irreversible) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an explicit destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: effect, timing, irreversibility, recovery behavior, and the confirmation requirement.

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 both parameters (id, confirm) are fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the confirm: true requirement rather than adding new meaning to either parameter.

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 and resource ("Remove a domain") and immediately adds the observable consequence (stops being served within 5 seconds, certificate dropped). This is unmistakably distinct from create_domain, get_domain, and list_domains in the sibling set.

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 an explicit precondition: "Only call it after the user explicitly confirmed deleting this hostname, and pass confirm: true." That is a clear when-to-use gate. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling is a substitute for deletion, so the gap is minor.

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