remove_sender_domain

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

The description discloses the behavioral trait that email reverts to default sending, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. Given no annotations, the description provides some transparency but could be more thorough.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The key action and consequence are front-loaded, and every word adds value. No unnecessary repetition or verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and effect. It could mention if the removal is immediate or has propagation delays, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the sole parameter 'project_id' ('The project ID'). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema states, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Remove a project's custom sender domain') and the consequence ('Email reverts to sending from mail.run402.com'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_custom_domain' and 'register_sender_domain' by describing the specific removal action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'enable_sender_domain_inbound' or 'disable_sender_domain_inbound'. There is no mention of prerequisites, like whether a custom domain must be currently registered, or when removal is appropriate.

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