Delete sending domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: no undo short of re-adding and re-verifying DNS, nothing can be sent from the domain afterward, a confirmation prompt occurs, and the admin-role check is skipped with an API key. These are important operational behaviors not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with Purpose and immediately followed by exclusions, return value, usage condition, and a critical note. Every sentence adds distinct, actionable information without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value ('Confirmation of removal'). Combined with the irreversible effect, confirmation prompt, and API-key auth nuance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is clearly documented in the schema as 'Domain UUID'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable here but does not exceed the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource ('Remove a sending domain from the project') and explicitly distinguishes the operation from temporary pausing, which is the closest adjacent concept. It also indirectly differentiates from sibling tools such as plunk_add_domain by noting a shared API-key behavior.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('A domain is genuinely retired') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Not for: Temporarily pausing sending'), plus the irreversible consequence of using it. The agent does not need to infer the appropriate context.

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