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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by naming exactly what is destroyed (both apex and www variants detached from Vercel) and the side effect of resetting redirectMode to none, though it says nothing about permissions or downstream propagation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the side effects second. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed and what changes on the backend, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Return behavior and whether the change is reversible are left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Site id.'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the id beyond implying it targets the active site; 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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove the custom domain from the active site) and the exact scope (apex and www variants, Vercel). An agent can distinguish it from set_domain, check_domain, get_domain_status and set_domain_redirect_mode without opening any 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?

The scenario is unambiguous: this is the teardown counterpart to set_domain, and 'from the active site' anchors it to the currently selected site. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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