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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a dry-run confirmation process, the cascading deletion of linked URLs, and the default human approval requirement for agent changes. These are significant behavioral traits that an agent needs to know before invoking the 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraints. Every clause adds critical information (dry-run, linked URLs, approval) without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core behavioral aspects (dry-run, cascading delete, approval) for a destructive tool with an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the two-step dry-run flow, but given the schema and annotations provide additional structure, it is sufficiently complete for agent use.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the dry-run confirmation (linking to 'confirm' parameter) and the approval requirement (linking to approval_id/approval_token). It adds meaning to parameters that lack schema descriptions, though domain_id remains self-explanatory.

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 ('Delete a custom domain and its linked URLs') and includes the dry-run confirmation step, making it distinct from sibling tools like delete_link and delete_tag. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (for deleting custom domains) and notes the human approval default for agent changes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the domain-specific scope naturally distinguishes it from link/tag deletion tools.

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