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

Goes well beyond the annotations by specifying what is actually destroyed ('the live key stops working on it at once'), that the effect is immediate and irreversible, and that the caller must be the owner. The destructiveHint annotation flags danger generally; the description supplies the concrete consequence and authorization constraint.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct and actionable fact: action, immediate effect, irreversibility, authorization, and required confirmation. Nothing is padded and the highest-risk information 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers consequence, reversibility, and permissions well. It is silent on side effects on related configuration (e.g., domain-product assignments), which is the only meaningful gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as a uuid sourced from list_domains, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional detail about the identifier, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 (remove) and resource (domain) in the first two words, and the verb alone distinguishes it from add_domain, list_domains, and verify_domain. The following sentence immediately clarifies the effect on the live key, so there is no ambiguity about what 'remove' means here.

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?

'Owner only. Ask the person first.' gives an explicit permission precondition and a confirmation requirement before invocation, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a destructive call. It does not name sibling alternatives, but for a delete operation the decision is rarely between this and another tool.

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