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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true: discloses that it revokes all proofs and delegations irreversibly (re-adding doesn't restore them), deletes records, removes _proof TXT/Resend sending domain where possible, lists leftover manual cleanup in the response, and requires owner auth plus 2FA. This is exactly the context annotations can't carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: irreversible consequences first, then auth prerequisites, then the alternative. Long sentences but every clause carries needed warning. Slightly heavy but justified for a destructive op.

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?

Complete for a destructive single-param tool: covers cascade effects, irreversibility, auth/2FA flow, leftover cleanup, and an alternate path. No output schema, so noting the response content (list of manual leftovers) fills that gap too.

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 the single id is documented ('Domain ID to delete'); description reinforces that id is the domain id used as target but adds little beyond schema. Baseline 3-4 appropriate given full coverage.

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+resource ('Remove a domain') and precisely enumerates the cascade consequences. Distinguishes clearly from revoke_asset and delete_domain_verification by naming them.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative 'revoke_asset' for the case of only needing a fresh proof, and states the exact precondition (owner, start_login session, start_2fa_for_action with action_type domain_remove and targets [id]). When-to-use/when-not are unambiguous.

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