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

With annotations only saying readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description adds real behavioral context: a serving domain normally requires human approval, while this call executes without a human. That materially changes how an agent should treat the call. It does not explain reversibility or what happens to the detached domain, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the one nuance that matters. No filler or repetition.

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 4-param removal tool with a full schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral wrinkle (staged approval vs immediate action). It omits what happens after removal or failure modes, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 domain/project/environment/expect_revision are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Take a public domain off its Service" gives a concrete verb (remove/detach) and resource (public domain), clearly distinct from the add/update/check domain siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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 staging note implies when the call applies (removal of a serving domain is gated to human approval at next deploy; this call is the immediate path), but it never states when to use this versus domain_update, domain_add, or the approval flow. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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