domain_remove_directives

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether removal is immediate or reversible, whether the directives must already exist, or whether a restart/reload is needed for the change to take effect.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and directly useful for constructing the call. Slightly boilerplate docstring formatting, but no wasted prose.

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 no explanation, and both parameters are documented. However, for a destructive two-parameter mutation tool there is no guidance on prerequisites, permission requirements, or the effect on the domain after removal, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, and the description meaningfully compensates: full_fqdn is described as the full domain name, and directives is clarified as a JSON array despite the schema typing it as a plain string, complete with the example [{"name": "max_execution_time", "value": "60"}]. This resolves genuine ambiguity the schema alone would create.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing PHP directives from a domain. The verb 'remove' (Снять) naturally contrasts with the sibling tools domain_add_directives and domain_get_directives, so an agent can route correctly, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closely related domain_add_directives / domain_get_directives siblings. Only the operation itself is implied; the agent must infer that this tool is for deleting previously set directives.

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