mailkite_delete_domain

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the auth requirement ('Requires a management session token'), which is valuable context. It does not contradict annotations and provides a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the annotations state. However, it does not describe side effects like cascading removal of associated resources, but that is not strictly necessary given the destructive hint.

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 short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Remove a domain') and immediately follows with the key prerequisite. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does and a key requirement. The destructive nature is covered by annotations, and the id parameter is sufficiently clarified. It could mention the permanence of the action, but the destructiveHint annotation already conveys that, so the description is complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'Path parameter id.' The tool description adds the context that the id refers to the domain to be removed, which is a slight enhancement. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds only marginal meaning (domain id), a baseline score 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 states a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('domain'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools in the sibling list, but the resource type (domain) is distinct enough that an agent would not confuse it with deleting webhooks or sequences. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a requirement (management session token) but does not explain when deletion is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., domain must be verified), or when to use other domain-related tools like verify_domain or list_domains. The agent is left to infer context.

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