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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool removes the custom-domain DNS record and CDN hostname, and that the page remains available at the preview hostname, which conveys the mutation's impact and its non-destructive effect on the page. It also mentions the 5-token cost. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the essential consequences are clear.

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: one action sentence, one consequence sentence, and one cost line. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter operation with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action, the side effects on the DNS/CDN setup, the fact that the page remains live, and the token cost. An agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without needing additional context.

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 schema already describes page_id fully at 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. The description adds useful context about what detaching does, but no additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 action ('Detach') on a specific resource ('custom hostname from a hosted static website') and further clarifies what removal entails (DNS record and CDN hostname). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pages.set_custom_domain.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when detaching a custom hostname from a page. It does not explicitly name the inverse tool or state when-not-to-use, but the sibling set_custom_domain makes the alternative obvious, and the statement that the page stays online at the preview hostname helps the agent understand the scope.

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