domain_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the scope phrase 'из аккаунта' and says nothing about irreversible consequences (removal of associated sites, mail, DNS records) or whether confirmation is required – the context an agent most needs for a destructive call.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and terse, which is good, but the 'Args:' block adds nothing that the schema does not already show. It is short without being wasteful, but also without earning its structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a destructive, non-readOnly operation on an account domain, the definition omits idempotency, side effects, and any recovery guidance, leaving the definition under-specified for its risk level.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'domain_id: ID домена' merely restates the parameter name; it does not say whether this is a domain name string vs. numeric ID, nor how the ID is obtained (via domain_list). This leaves real ambiguity for a required identifier.

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 ('Убрать домен из аккаунта' – remove domain from account), which is clear on its own. However it gives no differentiation from close siblings such as domain_delete_subdomain or site_unlink_domain, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., domain_delete_subdomain for subdomains vs. this tool for a top-level domain). The agent is left to infer scope purely from the tool name.

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