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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it marks the action as destructive/irreversible, explains API key invalidation and subsequent 401 failures, describes the 409 refusal behavior and name list, and details the force=true consequences including name release. This is exceptionally thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 most critical facts are front-loaded ('DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE'), followed by precise behavioral and safety details. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place for a destructive account-level operation.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description is complete for an agent to call this correctly and safely. It covers the destructive nature, refusal conditions, force behavior, and the required user-consent workflow.

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 input schema already documents the single force parameter with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema — the 409 response with name list, the need to show it to the user, and the fact that names stop resolving and become claimable — clearly aiding correct invocation.

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 and resource — deleting the whole AgentDomains account and invalidating its API key — and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_domain or delete_record by scoping it to the entire account. An agent can tell this is not a cleanup tool without opening any 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?

It explicitly states when to call this ('only when the user has asked to close the account itself') and when not to call it ('never as cleanup after a task, and never to start fresh on your own initiative'). It also gives a concrete precondition: without force, the call refuses with a 409 and requires explicit user confirmation before retrying.

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