Remove Micro custom domain

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the exactness constraint and project scope, which is useful context, but it does not go beyond that to describe side effects or consequences of removing the domain.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, and the key qualifier 'one exact' appears early.

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?

The output schema and annotation hints cover return values and safety, so a short description is acceptable for this simple delete-like operation. However, the lack of explicit guidance on how to find the domainId or when to use this versus domain management siblings leaves a moderate gap.

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 covers path and confirm with descriptions, and the domainId is reasonably inferable from its name and UUID constraints. The description's 'one exact custom domain' adds high-level meaning but does not directly explain how to obtain or supply domainId.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the resource ('custom domain'), and adds a precise qualifier ('one exact') plus scope ('linked project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_domain_add, micro_domain_verify, and micro_domains.

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 implies the use case: removing a single exact custom domain from the linked project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling tool names and the removal context.

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