subdomains_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does provide useful context: the contents flag deletes files under the document root, impersonate identifies the owning user, and confirm is marked as required. However, it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether DNS or other linked resources are affected, or what permissions are needed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The argument list is neatly structured, and every line adds relevant information without filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists and all parameters are briefly explained, the description is incomplete for a destructive operation. It lacks guidance on confirming the deletion, prerequisites, irreversibility, and cascading effects, and the confirm semantics conflict with the schema's optional/default-false definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the five parameters gets a meaningful one-line explanation beyond its title. The only weakness is that 'confirm: Required' is ambiguous about whether the value must be true, especially since the schema gives it a default of false.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a subdomain.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subdomains_list and subdomains_create, and the intended operation is immediately obvious.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what happens if the subdomain is still in use. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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