panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_domains_unlink

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is mutating and changes server state, and adds the required scope docker:write. These go beyond the annotations, which already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, by adding auth and HTTP method details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear action line followed by HTTP method, category, required scopes, and mutation flag. Every line carries relevant information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description fails to specify the request body contract—what identifiers or fields (e.g., domain, container) are needed to perform the unlink. With no output schema and a free-form body parameter, the agent cannot reliably construct a correct request from this definition alone. The pointer to API docs is a stopgap rather than complete context.

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% because the single body parameter has a description, but that description only says 'Request body (application/json)' and notes the schema is not statically declared. The tool description adds no detail about what the body must contain, leaving the agent with a baseline 3 but no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'Unlink domain from container', a specific verb and resource pair that unambiguously states the operation. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'link' tool by using the inverse action, and from the read-only linked-domains getter.

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?

Usage is implied by the action phrase 'Unlink domain from container' and reinforced by the POST mutation context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor a mention of the inverse link endpoint. The description provides metadata like scopes and mutating but no direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use.

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