delete_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers permanence, irreversibility, cascading deletion of attached resources, immediate resolution loss, and the label being released. This is comprehensive for the context, and there is no contradiction with annotations because annotations do not exist.

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 compact, front-loaded with the most important warning—'DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE'—and every sentence contributes to user intent, consequences, or invocation conditions. There is no filler.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the material facts an agent needs: what gets deleted, immediate resolution impact, irreversibility, and when it is appropriate to call. It is sufficient on its own.

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 already describes both parameters fully—label format is documented with an example and domain has its values and default explained. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's high-level language about deleting a subdomain is sufficient; it does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 is explicit and specific: 'permanently delete a subdomain and every DNS record, forward, and proxy attached to it.' It names the exact resource and the full scope of deletion, which cleanly distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_forward or remove_proxy.

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?

It provides a strong decision rule: 'Only call this when the user has explicitly asked for this specific name to be deleted.' It also explains why caution is needed—destruction is permanent and affects DNS, forwarding, proxying, and label availability. This is the kind of when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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