mail_domain_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says what the tool does without any consequences. It does not disclose whether deletion cascades to associated mail users, aliases, forwards, or catchall settings, whether the operation is reversible, or whether safety checks or permissions apply. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 maximally concise with zero wasted words and front-loads the action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity, offering nothing beyond a restatement of the 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?

Complexity is low (one parameter) and the schema fully covers that parameter, but the tool is destructive and has no annotations and no output schema. The description omits critical context an agent needs before invoking a delete operation, such as cascade effects on mail users/aliases/forwards, reversibility, or what a successful deletion returns. The definition is not complete enough for safe autonomous 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single required parameter domain_id is documented as 'Mail domain ID' in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Since there is only one simple numeric parameter, this is adequate.

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 a specific resource ('a mail domain'), so an agent can clearly tell this is the removal operation for mail domains. The resource qualifier inherently distinguishes it from siblings like web_domain_delete, dns_zone_delete, and database_delete. However, it is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name and does not explicitly differentiate itself from mail_domain_add, mail_domain_get, or mail_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no workflow context. It is a single declarative sentence with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools such as mail_domain_get or mail_domain_list. The only usage signal an agent gets is the literal meaning of 'delete.'

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