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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that deletion cannot be undone, and it explains the authentication/session requirement. It does not detail cascading effects or response behavior, but the major risks are surfaced.

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?

The description is economically written and front-loads the core action and irreversibility before the access instructions. The auth note is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes necessary information for invoking the tool successfully.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know: what is deleted, that it is irreversible, and how to obtain the required session. It could mention how to find the domain ID, but the sibling list_domains tool makes that discoverable.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter as 'Domain ID to delete,' and the description does not add much beyond that. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description simply reinforces the parameter's purpose without adding new semantic 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove a domain from the account') with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like add_domain or list_domains, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to differentiate from.

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 description gives explicit context for use: a Proof account is required, and it directs the agent to authenticate or use start_login to establish a session before calling the tool again. It does not discuss alternative tools, but the auth prerequisite is clear and actionable.

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