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

Beyond the annotations, it explains the immediate effect, the delayed certificate/distribution cleanup, the transient removed:false return value, and repeat-call safety. This is exactly the kind of mutation behavior an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the main effect and followed by the timing and idempotency details. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the immediate effect, asynchronous cleanup, return behavior, and repeatability. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly despite the simple schema.

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?

There is only one required parameter, siteId, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies the parameter identifies the site but does not add format or lookup details, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it detaches a custom domain from a site and explains the immediate fallback to a runlitehost.com subdomain. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_custom_domain and check_custom_domain_status.

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 clear operational context: the domain reverts immediately, cleanup finishes later, and the call is safe to repeat. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as set_custom_domain, but the removal scenario is unambiguous.

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