remove_sending_domainDelete a BYO sending domain. Any demand tests bound to it fall back to the managed shiply sender. Also GCs the underlying Resend domain. Irreversible — re-adding requires re-verifying DNS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | sending domain id from list_sending_domains |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"sending domain id from list_sending_domains"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds that the operation is irreversible and that re-adding requires re-verifying DNS, providing useful behavioral context.
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?
Three concise sentences: action, consequences, and irreversibility. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
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 delete operation with one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers what is deleted, effects on dependents, and irreversibility—fully sufficient 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?
The description does not add meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what is already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 explicitly states 'Delete a BYO sending domain' with a clear verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like add_sending_domain or check_sending_domain.
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 explains consequences (fallback to managed sender, GC of underlying Resend domain) and notes irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.