Delete Worker Domain

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and mutating behavior. The description adds specific context that the action detaches the domain and stops routing to the Worker and its previews, which is more detailed than the annotations alone. It does not contradict the annotations and explains the affected hostname scope.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and including a relevant consequence. No unnecessary words or redundancy make it highly efficient.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and impact. It explains what happens (detach, stop routing) without needing to detail return values or complex edge cases.

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 only parameter, domain_id, is fully documented in the schema with the source (from list_worker_domains). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond that, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool detaches a custom domain from its Worker, using the specific verb 'detach' and the resource 'custom domain'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_worker_domain or delete_worker, which have different actions and targets.

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 implies usage by describing the action and its effect ('hostname stops routing'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of like 'use this when you want to stop routing' or 'if you need to remove the worker itself, use delete_worker'.

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