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

The description clearly indicates destructive intent with 'Delete' and 'remove', and the annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint. It adds the workspace scope, but does not mention irreversibility or side effects on associated records; annotations cover the core destructive behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording, directly stating the action and common use cases.

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 tool is simple, destructive annotations are present, and an output schema is indicated, so return values do not need to be described. The description sufficiently covers the main scenario, though it could mention idempotency behavior more explicitly, but the annotation already handles that.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'Unique domain ID.' with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a single simple parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('domain from the workspace'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like domain_get, domain_update, and domain_list.

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 a clear trigger ('when it is no longer needed') and examples ('old or incorrect domain configurations'), but it does not explicitly contrast with domain_update for fixing incorrect configurations, leaving some ambiguity about when deletion is preferable to update.

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