domain_delete

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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), mentions use cases like 'Removing unused domains' and 'Cleaning up configurations', and implies permanent deletion rather than temporary disabling. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (API context, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Related). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no wasted words, and critical information is 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the tool's purpose, usage context, and relationships. However, it doesn't describe what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if domain doesn't exist) or potential side effects on related services.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately high.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete a domain from a service'), identifies the resource ('domain'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_update and domain_list. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, names specific alternatives (domain_update), mentions prerequisites (domain_list), and relates to other tools (service_update). This comprehensive guidance helps the agent understand when to use this tool versus other options.

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