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

Annotations already cover destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is structured data. The description adds genuine new context beyond them: the change is immediate and the on-demand TLS gate fail-closes on the next handshake, telling the agent the disruption is fast and observable.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the destructive outcome is front-loaded before the technical consequence. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential effect and timing. It omits whether the action is reversible and whether other domains on the agent are affected, which would round it out.

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%, so both 'domain' and 'agent_id' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, matching, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect a custom domain from its agent'), which unambiguously separates it from connect_domain and verify_domain in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over connect_domain/verify_domain, no prerequisites, and no note on whether the agent must be stopped first. The only usage signal is the verb itself, which the agent must infer from.

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