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

The description adds a key behavioral trait: it also removes DKIM keys. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether the removal is irreversible, requires special permissions, or impacts other associated data. It gives some useful context but does not fully cover the destructive nature.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the operation and the side effect. No wasted words.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the primary action and a key side effect, but the lack of any cautionary language about irrevocability is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it is at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 verb ('Remove') and the resource ('a sending domain'), and explicitly notes that it also removes DKIM keys. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_sending_domain and list_sending_domains.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for removing a sending domain, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous given the operation and sibling tools.

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