site_unlink_domain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, framing this as a non-destructive write. The description does not explain what unlink does to the existing binding (does the domain persist?), whether it's reversible, or what permissions are required. Given the tool mutates a site-domain relationship, more behavioral context would help.

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 a single declarative sentence followed by the Args block. It's efficient and to the point, though slightly wasteful by restating domain_id trivially.

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 needn't be explained. However, for a mutation tool that changes a site-domain binding, the description lacks detail on effects, reversibility, or relationship to sibling link/unlink operations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (domain_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description repeats the trivial meaning of domain_id ("ID домена") which is a bare restatement of the name. With a single required parameter, this is barely adequate; the description adds no format, lookup, or source information.

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+resource in Russian ("Снять привязку домена от сайта" = unlink a domain from a site), which is clear enough to identify the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like site_link_domain and domain_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as site_link_domain or domain_delete. The agent must infer context entirely from the name. There are no stated prerequisites or conditions.

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