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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds concrete meaning by stating the connection replaces any existing domain and that the caller must relay DNS records to their provider. It still doesn't say what happens if verification fails or whether the old domain is detached permanently.

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 tight sentences with the primary action and its replacement semantics front-loaded, and the async/check_domain note second. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the destructive replacement, the asynchronous verification window, the return value's nature, and the follow-up tool. Only failure and permission semantics are left implicit, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 67%; the www flag and hostname format are documented in the schema, but the required 'site' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it neither compensates for the gap nor wastes space.

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 — connects a domain the person owns to a site — plus the side effect of replacing any prior domain and the returned payload (DNS records). This clearly distinguishes it from the adjacent check_domain status tool.

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 explicitly routes status inquiries to check_domain and clarifies the verification is asynchronous ("runs by itself for a while"), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating prerequisites (domain ownership must be verified) or the conditions under which it should not be used.

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