Delete Domain Forwarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether deletion is irreversible, whether it affects email routing or website functionality, or whether it removes all forwardings or a single rule. This leaves the agent without safety-critical information for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise at four words, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices additional context that could be valuable, so while it is concise, it is not optimally informative. A score of 4 reflects good conciseness with room for more substance.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter delete tool, but the description is so minimal that it provides no context about what forwarding is, what the side effects are, or what the response will be. Without an output schema, more detail is needed to make the tool self-explanatory. The description is below the minimum viable threshold for contextual completeness.

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 has one parameter, 'domain', with a description 'Domain name', giving 100% schema coverage. According to the baseline rule, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not. Thus a score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 'Remove domain forwarding' uses a clear verb+resource structure and distinguishes from sibling tools like domains_create_forwarding and domains_update_forwarding. However, it lacks specificity about whether it removes all forwarding rules or a specific one, which prevents a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, such as the domain being verified or existing forwarding setup, nor does it contrast with domains_update_forwarding or domains_get_forwarding. Usage is only implied by the name and action.

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