delete_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is destructive, cascades to every mailbox and message, is hard to reverse, and requires upfront user confirmation. This is exactly the critical behavioral information an agent needs before invoking a high-impact deletion tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and consequence, and the second adds an essential safety guardrail, making the most important information front-loaded.

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 tool has a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation: what is deleted, what else is affected, and the need for confirmation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it safely.

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% and the schema already explains the domain parameter with an example ('example.com'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a domain') and clearly distinguishes this from delete_mailbox by stating that every mailbox and message under the domain is also removed via cascade. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope and impact.

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?

The description provides clear operational context by warning that the operation is destructive, hard to reverse, and requires user confirmation before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as delete_mailbox or state when not to use it, but the cascade wording makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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