Delete a domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the action is irreversible and it cascades to delete every link on the domain. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what the response returns.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then irreversibility, then blast radius. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 with no output schema and only a full-coverage schema for parameters, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: permanence and cascade scope. It would be complete if it also flagged the required confirmation parameter and any permission constraints.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so slug, account and confirm are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax, format, or confirmation requirements of its own — notably it never mentions that a 'confirm' flag must be set for the mutation to proceed.

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 and resource ('Delete a domain from a workspace') so an agent immediately knows the operation and target, and the cascade note sharpens what the resource means. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other delete_* siblings, but the unique resource name makes misselection unlikely.

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 cannot be undone' implicitly tells the agent this is only for permanent removal, which is real usage context. However, it never names an alternative or a circumstance in which to prefer something else (e.g., update_domain, or removing links individually), so guidance is only implied.

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