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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a solid job: it states that Boathouse starts answering on the domain, that DNS records are returned, that the operation is owner-only, and that the tool can optionally be pointed at one tool simultaneously. It doesn't discuss reversibility or DNS propagation, but the core behavioral consequences are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediate consequence, then mentions the optional tool behavior and access restriction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is largely complete: it conveys when it applies, what changes, what is returned, and who can invoke it. It doesn't cover failure modes or how to undo the attach, but an agent has enough to call it correctly in the basic case.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only light reinforcement for the 'tool' parameter ('point it at one tool') and nothing new about 'domain' or 'workspace' beyond what the schema already documents. Since every parameter is already well-described in the schema, no compensation is required.

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 the action ('Bring a domain the workspace already owns elsewhere'), the system affected ('Boathouse starts answering on it'), and the result (DNS records returned). The 'already owns elsewhere' clause distinguishes it from buying or checking domains, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings like domain_point or domain_repoint, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies the intended use case—attaching a domain the workspace already owns elsewhere—and mentions an optional tool association. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many domain-related sibling tools, so the agent must infer the right context.

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