alternative_distribution_domains__delete

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already state: destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It doesn't disclose consequences like permanent deletion, auth requirements, or error behavior. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description misses an opportunity to add meaningful context.

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 sentence with the specific action and endpoint, front-loaded and free of irrelevant details. Every word earns its place. It is an excellent example of concise, structured documentation.

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 simple delete operation with one fully-documented parameter, the description plus schema and annotations provide sufficient context. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. A slightly richer note on permanence would make it fully complete, but it is adequate as-is.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (id) with a useful description ('ID from the matching list call'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional clarification is needed.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('alternative distribution domain'), making it distinct from sibling list, get, and create tools. Including the HTTP DELETE endpoint reinforces the specific operation. It fully defines the tool's purpose in a concise manner.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever an alternative distribution domain needs to be deleted. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the simple CRUD nature makes the usage obvious. The schema's 'ID from the matching list call' hints at the prerequisite of a prior list call.

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