delete_domain

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

Annotations already mark this destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false, but the description far exceeds them: it discloses irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), that re-adding the domain will not restore delegations, that some external cleanup may be incomplete (Resend sending domain, _proof TXT record 'where we can'), and that the response returns a manual-removal checklist.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its destructive consequences before the auth mechanics, and every sentence carries information. The dense parentheticals and the appended access/setup block make it slightly heavier than necessary, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return value ('the response lists what is left for you to remove by hand'). Combined with the auth prerequisites and full cascade disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 ('id') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only reinforces that the target is 'this domain id' via the 2FA targets list, adding little beyond the structured data — the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Remove a domain from the account') and immediately enumerates the cascade: proofs, delegations, domain records, _proof TXT record, Resend sending domain. It also distinguishes itself from revoke_asset by naming that sibling when only proofs need revoking.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (revoke_asset) and the condition selecting it ('Need only a fresh proof? ... which keeps the domain'), and states the preconditions: owner only, start_login session, one 2FA code via start_2fa_for_action with action_type domain_remove and targets [this domain id].

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