delete_domain_verification

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description refines this by clarifying that deleting an unverified attempt revokes nothing, and contrasts it with the case that does revoke proofs and delegations. It also discloses an access prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart) and that start_login does not open this tool, which is behavior no annotation conveys.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every clause carries information. The refusal case sentence is a run-on that packs the error code, the revocation consequence, and the alternative tool into one clause, which slightly hurts readability but wastes no words.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the happy path, the refusal path with its error code, the consequence gap versus delete_domain, and the access precondition. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with a single parameter whose format (24 hex characters) and pattern are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the id, so 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 specific verb and resource (delete a domain verification attempt) and immediately bounds the scope to unverified attempts (pending, verifying, failed). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with — delete_domain, which acts on verified domains — so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-it-works (unverified attempts) and when-it-is-refused (verified or needing re-verification, returns domain_verified), plus the alternative route for that case (delete_domain in a start_login session or the dashboard). Both branches and the fallback are covered.

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