liara_remove_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove a domain from an app,' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects app functionality, or has side effects (e.g., DNS changes). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), expected outcomes, or error conditions. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for safe and effective use is poorly addressed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'domainId' clearly documented as 'The domain ID to remove.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 ('Remove') and target ('a domain from an app'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'liara_add_domain' by specifying removal rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly mention this contrast. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, which would elevate it to a 5.

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, such as 'liara_delete_domain' (if it existed) or other domain-related operations. It also omits prerequisites, like whether the domain must be detached or if the app needs to be in a specific state. Without such context, the agent has minimal usage direction.

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