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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond a restatement. For a destructive mutation it should disclose consequences: whether mail flow stops, whether inboxes/DNS records are removed, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing consequence information rather than being deliberately tight.

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?

This is a destructive, two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no explanation of side effects or error conditions. An agent knows what it does nominally but not what it breaks or what it gets back.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (orgId, domainId) are documented in-schema with source hints pointing at org_list and domain_list. The description adds no extra semantics, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 verb 'Detaches' and resource 'custom domain from the organization' are specific and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as domain_attach, domain_verify, or domain_get, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to detach versus verify or delete, no stated preconditions (e.g., domain must be verified / inboxes must be removed first), and no mention of the alternative operation. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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