combell_mail_zones_smtp_domains_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description says 'Remove,' which is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of permanence, side effects, or reversibility. Given the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description adds minimal value beyond the structured data.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It states the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it forgoes useful context, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, effect descriptions, and any caveats. An agent cannot safely and correctly invoke this tool without additional external knowledge, making it inadequate for autonomous use.

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 does not explain what 'hostname' and 'domain_name' refer to. The agent must guess that 'hostname' is the mail zone hostname and 'domain_name' is the SMTP domain to delete. This is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters, both required.

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 action (Remove) and the resource (extra SMTP domain from the mail zone). It is distinct from sibling tools like create/update for SMTP domains, though the term 'extra' could be ambiguous regarding whether it means a domain beyond the primary or any SMTP domain. Still, the core purpose is clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or contrast with other mail zone operations. An agent would have to infer from the sibling list that this is the delete counterpart, but no explicit direction is given.

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