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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the non-obvious consequences: old links redirect to the same path, printed QR codes keep working, and the old name stays reserved forever. It also surfaces the 30-day throttle and owner permission requirement, which no structured field carries.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with what changes and the permission gate, then consequences, then the throttle and confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission, format validation, rate limiting, reversibility/redirect semantics, and the required user confirmation. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need to guess at before calling.

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% and the single parameter is documented, yet the description still adds material meaning absent from the schema: the actual naming rule (3–32 chars, lowercase letters/digits/hyphens, at least one letter) is much narrower than the schema's minLength 1 / maxLength 64. An agent could submit a schema-valid but rejected value without this text.

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 ('Change the name in the workspace address https://<name>.hy.24haowan.com'), including the exact object being mutated. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_page_path, bind_domain, or set_domain_route, which touch different addressing concepts.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility ('workspace owner only'), a hard rate limit ('once every 30 days, first change not limited'), and an interaction rule ('Confirm the name with the user before changing it'). It does not name alternative tools or state when this should be preferred over, say, bind_domain for custom addresses, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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