providers_domains_deleteDeletes a domain associated with a specific provider in UseGrant using provider and domain IDs, allowing you to remove or clean up domain associations.
Delete Domain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainId | Yes | Domain ID | |
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, giving the agent the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to associated records, whether verification state matters, or permission requirements for deletion.
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?
Two words are maximally concise but border on under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no wasted text, but there is also no front-loaded useful information.
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 output schema and heavy sibling competition, the description is inadequate. It should clarify irreversible effects, dependent resources, or prerequisites to be complete enough for correct invocation.
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 both path parameters (domainId, providerId) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond this, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is fully covered.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes verify, add, get, and list operations, and the description does nothing to indicate the conditions that select delete over those options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.