security-remove-domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (implied by 'removes' but not explicit), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting users in the domain), or provides any response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as safety warnings, permission requirements, expected outcomes, or error handling. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior and implications, which is insufficient for reliable use.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'name' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value (e.g., explaining domain naming conventions or validation rules).

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 clearly states the action ('Removes') and the resource ('a Sitecore domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-remove-role' or 'security-remove-user', but the domain specificity is clear enough for basic identification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools (e.g., 'security-get-domain' for verification). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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