Delete domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description still earns credit by disclosing irreversibility and, crucially, the cascade onto mailboxes and forwarders — blast radius that the annotations alone do not convey. It stays vague on exactly what happens to those child objects.

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?

Two short clauses with the irreversible nature front-loaded and the safety instruction last. No filler, nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it destroys, that it cannot be undone, and the confirmation duty. The one soft spot is 'affected' — whether mailboxes and forwarders are deleted or merely detached is left to inference.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema documents the domain name with an example and a pattern), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently removes a domain from the account') and adds scope ('mailboxes and forwarders under the domain are affected'), which distinguishes it from sibling deletes like delete_domain_pointer, delete_email_account, and delete_forwarder. An agent can pick the right tool without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Destructive: confirm with the user before calling', which tells the agent how to behave before invoking. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. removing only a pointer vs. the whole domain), so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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