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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, including automatic TLS, A-record pointing, and the prerequisite that the app must be live. It does not contradict the annotations and explains the mutation's scope without overstating side effects.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and immediately clarifying the most important prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and the mention of what the tool does not do is a compact differentiator.

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 annotations, full parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers prerequisites, user actions, and tool boundaries. It could mention what happens after connecting or how to verify the connection, but nothing essential is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: app_id must be a published app, and domain must be a domain the user already owns. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions, though the context parameter is not elaborated further.

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 a specific verb and resource: connecting a user-owned domain to a live Kleap app with routing and automatic TLS. It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_app, check_domain, and search_domains by emphasizing that no purchase is made and no prior publish step is needed.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: the user must already own the domain and the app must be live. It also gives a concrete exclusion, saying publish_app is not required, and references create_app/modify_app to clarify what counts as live.

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