conduyt_reply_capture_remove

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 — and it does: immediate stop of new-email capture, 30-day drain window (drainEndsAt), permanent name retirement with no undo, providerCleanup='manual' for id-less rows, and the caveat not to promise delivery on DEGRADED domains. This is exactly the non-obvious consequence disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the headline action, but the state matrix is delivered as a dense run-on paragraph mixing drain lifecycle, blocking semantics, and referral to a sibling. The content earns its place, but the structure makes it hard to scan quickly.

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?

Covers the full state machine, the confirm gate, the side effects on sending-domain removal, and the lifespan of the capture name — everything needed to call this destructive tool correctly. No output schema exists, and the description supplies the key response fields (drainEndsAt, providerCleanup) itself.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what confirming 'REMOVE' irrevocably commits (sending stops, name permanently retired, no undo), which is more than the schema's const note conveys.

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+resource ('Remove reply capture') and immediately disambiguates scope with the sibling family (conduyt_reply_capture_get for suggestedDomain, the setup/verify siblings implied). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Spells out the outcome for each operational state (LIVE provider-backed, LIVE legacy, DEGRADED, PENDING, lost-by-provider, cleanupPending retry), which tells an agent when this tool will behave how. It routes to conduyt_reply_capture_get for the replacement domain but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer removal versus other capture-maintenance siblings in plain terms.

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