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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that nothing is revoked for unverified attempts, the exact error code (domain_verified) for the refused case, what revocation would entail, and the authentication requirement for a Proof account. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool, which is a non-obvious access 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and efficiently separated into an ACCESS note. The first sentence is long and slightly tangled (the delete_domain/start_login clause is hard to parse on first read), but overall it earns its length.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema: it covers the eligible states, the refusal case and error code, the auth precondition, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with a single fully-documented id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the id format or origin beyond what the schema states — 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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete a domain verification attempt) and narrows scope precisely to the non-verified states (pending, verifying, failed). It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_domain, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Names the exclusion clearly — verified or needs-re-verification domains are refused with domain_verified — and routes the agent to the correct alternative (delete_domain in a start_login session or the dashboard). This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named fallback.

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