delete_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Remove'. It does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, whether associated mailboxes/emails/analytics are affected, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure for a non-existent ID.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Brevity here is a virtue, though the sentence is not doing enough work to earn top marks.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine safety profile, side effects, or expected response, which are all the more important because the description is the only source of that information.

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 documented as 'Domain UUID' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier or whether it accepts a domain name versus a UUID, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (sender domain), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like add_domain, get_domain, verify_domain, and list_domains. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the CRUD framing makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent that the domain should be verified or unused first, nor that removal is the correct action versus disabling or re-verifying.

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